Judicial Branch

After years of trying, Iowa lawmakers and others wanting to tweak or completely replace a decades-old system of selecting state Supreme Court judges were able to proclaim legislative victory in 2019. But as of early October, they still needed some wins in court to ensure the change.

At issue is Iowa’s 57-year-old merit-based selection process: State supreme court justices are appointed by the governor, whose choices are limited to a list of three candidates submitted by a judicial nominating commission. Four other Midwestern states also use some form of merit selection.

A legislative change in Iowa's process for selecting Supreme Court judges will put more power in the hands of the governor. SF 638, signed into law in May, alters how the 17-member State Judicial Nominating Commission will be appointed.

The governor now has the authority to choose a majority of commission members, nine of the 17. The remaining eight appointments will come from elections held among the state's lawyers.

A legal dispute in Indiana over private property rights and the public trust doctrine ended in February when the U.S. Supreme Court chose not to hear the case. In 2018, Indiana’s Supreme Court ruled that public use of the Lake Michigan shoreline extended to the lake’s “natural ordinary high water mark.” Some lakefront property owners argued that the “water’s edge” should instead be used as the legal dividing line. The Indiana justices disagreed: “At a minimum, walking below the natural [ordinary high water mark] along the shores of Lake Michigan is a protected public use.”

Today, grand juries are viewed mostly as a tool for prosecutors, a means of gathering evidence and seeking indictments. But they have long had a second important function as well — to control the government and its power to prosecute.

Six states, including Kansas, Nebraska and North Dakota in the Midwest, have laws on the books that put a twist on this government-checking role: Allow local citizens themselves to form grand juries. The target of these state statutes is not overzealous prosecutors, but inactive ones.

The three themes that dominated the third day of Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings were the same three topics discussed at length the day before:  executive power, abortion, and gun rights. Executive power received the most attention.

Making headlines were Senator Booker’s release of “committee confidential” Kavanagh emails discussing abortion and racial-profiling before they were cleared for release to the public, Judge Kavanaugh’s refusal to say whether he thinks Roe v. Wade was decided correctly, and his refusal to condemn President Trump’s attacks on the judiciary.  

Issues related to state and local governments received a little attention, including judicial deference to federal agencies, which was discussed a number of times the day before.

If you were interested in the views of protesters, the details of the Federalist papers, Judge Kavanaugh’s most difficult job (working construction at age 16), and a broad ranging discussion of executive power, day two of Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings weren’t disappointing.

But if you were interested in knowing Judge Kavanaugh’s views on issues of importance to state and local governments you may have been disappointed. Generally, Supreme Court nominees give little away about their actual views on the law. Judge Kavanaugh was no exception. But he also wasn’t asked many hard hitting questions on legal issues of importance to state and local governments--with the exceptions of the expected questions on abortion and gun rights.

The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court has touched off a battle between Republicans eager to reshape the court by moving Justice Anthony Kennedy’s “swing seat” to the right and Democrats desperate to ensure that any change is minimal. Much of the national conversation on a “Justice” Kavanaugh centers around his potential views on the social issues for which Kennedy was the swing vote, particularly abortion and overturning Roe v. Wade. Kavanaugh is something of an enigma on the issue: He stated at his confirmation hearing for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that he was bound by Roe v. Wade as precedent. But he named Chief Justice Rehnquist (who dissented in Roe) as a judicial hero, and he voted to uphold restrictions on abortion in certain situations while on the lower court.