The vanguard of equality: the Iowa Supreme Court's journey to stay ahead of the curve on an arc bending towards justice.

• Author: Cady, Mark S.
• Position: PERSPECTIVES

Dr. Martin Luther King insightfully and eloquently declared that "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." (1) Our forty-fourth President has added an important understanding to this enduring declaration that the arc "doesn't bend on its own." (2) Both precepts apply equally to the parallel arc of the legal universe. Justice is not a destination. Instead, it follows a long interminable arc bent toward a more complete meaning for justice by the foresight, courage, and will of people, legislatures, and courts, all as contemplated and expected by our nation's Constitution and, more particularly, by those of the states.

As history has shown, the U.S. Supreme Court's consideration of civil rights questions of critical significance has too often yielded calculations that placed people behind the vertex on the parabola of justice. (3) This result is why the several states, including my own state of Iowa, occupy a critical position in the history and future of civil rights. (4) In the nascence of our republic, the framers of the Federal Constitution viewed the states as the primary protectors of fundamental rights, such as equal protection under the law. (5) As we continue to march into the twenty-first century, this approach must continue.

Many early constitutional battles--the nullification crisis, for example (6)--were fought over the states' asserted sovereignty, which was often a proxy fight for the perseverance of slavery. (7) And, so, the Civil War Amendments federalized important civil rights: prohibiting slavery; (8) guaranteeing citizenship, equal protection, and due process of law; (9) and protecting the right to vote. (10) Undoubtedly, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has been pivotal to the protection of civil rights and civil liberties; over the last century, the Supreme Court used it to incorporate most of the Bill of Rights against the states. (11)

But, the Federal Constitution merely sets a "constitutional floor" below which state constitutional interpretations may not sink. (12) The states never surrendered the power to play an independent role in guaranteeing a greater measure of equality and liberty for their citizens. (13) From a constitutional standpoint, it is a well-settled precept that states enjoy considerable freedom to depart from federal interpretations of analogous--even identically worded--federal constitutional provisions. (14) Our own opinions have not only extolled the virtues of relying on independent state constitutional grounds, but have consistently utilized this vehicle on our journey for equal justice. (15)

Mere observation of a state court's freedom to interpret its constitution independently is meaningless if unaccompanied by action. Such constitutional tokenism not only renders a venerated authority feckless, it shirks a responsibility of the utmost gravity--a responsibility that should be jealously guarded and employed with reverent, faithful allegiance to the principles of equality and liberty. This responsibility is a key source of Iowa's proud civil rights heritage and vigorous approach to ensuring that all of our citizens enjoy equal protection under the law. (16) No court is inerrant. Our court, like all others, has published pages that future generations would revise with disdain. However, by persistently seeking to demonstrate the circumspection and courageousness necessary to protect the civil liberties of all Iowans, our court has consistently placed Iowans well ahead of the curve on an arc bending towards justice.

On July 4, 1839, some seven years prior to achieving statehood, Iowa began its legal history with a decision that would stand as a groundbreaking testament to equality, liberty, and uniformity of law--civil rights principles that would become the bedrock upon which our jurisprudence would stand. (17) In re Ralph, the first published opinion of the Supreme Court of Iowa, presented the case of a black man from Missouri who had been permitted to come to Iowa to work in order to purchase his freedom. (18) When the man came up short, the Missouri slave owner sent bounty hunters to collect him and sued in Iowa court for his return. (19) Chief Justice Charles Mason, writing for the then three-member panel, rejected the claim of the Missouri slave owner. The court concluded that the law "extend[s] equal protection to men of all colors and conditions," (20) and therefore, "no man in this territory can be reduced to slavery." (21) Thus, twenty-six years before the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery (22) and eighteen years before the Supreme Court reached the opposite result in the iniquitous Dred Scott decision, (23) the Iowa Supreme Court gave real meaning to the abiding principle "all men are created equal." (24)

Less than twenty years later, the Iowa Supreme Court reaffirmed an abounding dedication to the precept of equality under the law by ruling that Susan B. Clark, a twelve-year-old school girl, could not be denied admission to public school because she was black. (25) Relying on the broad constitutional principle of "equal rights to all, upon which our government is founded," the Iowa Supreme Court once again set the standard well above the appallingly low federal constitutional floor (26) that would not be elevated by the U.S. Supreme Court until nearly a century later in Brown v. Board of Education. (27)

In 1869, Justice Francis Springer helped demonstrate that the Iowa Supreme Court possessed a commitment to gender equality as well by admitting Arabella Mansfield to the bar, making her the first woman licensed to practice law in the nation. (28) After becoming the first woman in the nation to pass a bar exam, Mansfield successfully persuaded Springer to interpret the gender-restrictive language in the Iowa bar admissions statute in a gender-neutral fashion. (29) This impressive first stood in stark contrast to the position taken in other states and by the U.S. Supreme Court, which some four years later concluded that an Illinois woman had no right to practice law. (30)

In the 1873 case, Coger v. North Western Union Packet Co., (31) the Iowa Supreme Court dealt another blow to the abhorrent institution of segregation and the "separate but equal" rationale upon which it was speciously based. (32) Coger, decided five years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, (33) presented the opportunity to continue the tradition of staying in the vanguard of civil rights established in Clark by embracing our responsibility to independently interpret the Iowa Constitution. This opportunity came by way of Emma Coger, a black, female school teacher who brought suit after she was denied dining accommodations on a steamboat in Keokuk. (34)

With some difficulty, Coger purchased a ticket with admittance to the first-class dining section of the steamboat that was limited to white patrons only. (35) When the captain of the steamer asked her to leave the dining room, she resisted arduously and was forcibly removed. (36) Subsequently, she brought suit against the steamboat company for assault and battery. (37) The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict for Coger. (38) The court concluded that the principle of equality contained in Article I, section 6 of the Iowa Constitution could not tolerate such a denial of access to a public accommodation on the basis of race. (39)

...