Iowa justices allow suit against Branstad to proceed

Despite a warning its ruling would expose the state to a raft of new lawsuits, a divided Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday for the first time that state government officials who violate a citizen's constitutional rights can be sued for monetary damages.

The 4-3 ruling allows the case of former Iowa Workers' Compensation Commissioner Christopher Godfrey to proceed.

Godfrey asserts that then-Gov. Terry Branstad deeply cut his pay, and other Iowa officials disparaged his work, after he refused the governor's request to resign.

The dispute over what Godfrey describes as retaliation driven by 'political motivation” already has gone on for about six years, and the state's bill to defend itself is closing in on $1 million.

Justices were careful to note they aren't taking a position on the merits of Godfrey's assertions - only the question of whether he can sue the state officials, which include Branstad and now-Gov. Kim Reynolds - for money damages.

Godfrey was appointed by Democratic Govs. Tom Vilsack and Chet Culver in 2006 and 2009, respectively, and unanimously confirmed by the Iowa Senate. Although the first appointment came in midterm, the latter was for six years.

But Branstad, a Republican who won a second stint as governor, in 2011 cut Godfrey's $112,068 salary to the statutory minimum of $73,250 after, Godfrey said, asking him to quit.

He sued Branstad and members of the administration for $1 million. The former commissioner, who is gay, claimed defamation, harassment, sexual discrimination and extortion.

The ruling Friday means he can proceed with his suit - but dissenting justices warn it could mean much more.

In bringing his case, Godfrey said the state constitution's equal protection and due process provisions provide for a direct action for damages, and argued that any remedies allowed through legislation were inadequate. A district court granted summary judgment in his favor, which the state appealed.

In the ruling Friday, the state Supreme Court affirmed that judgment in part and reversed it in part - but in total kept the door open for Godfrey to assert violations of the constitution and sue for money over them.

The state argued that any potential constitutional claim Godfrey may have is pre-empted by the Iowa Civil Rights Act, which was passed by the Legislature.

But the court majority, citing an 1803 U.S. Supreme Court case, found a constitution trumps legislative actions.

'If we held that a statute might pre-empt an otherwise valid constitutional action … the Iowa Constitution would no longer be the supreme law of the state,” wrote Justice Brent Appel.

He was joined in the majority opinion by Chief Justice Mark Cady and Justices David Wiggins and Daryl Hecht.

But dissenting justices noted the decision is a major departure.

'What we have not done in the past 160 years is to go beyond declaring unconstitutional actions ‘void,' which we are authorized to do by the first sentence, and assume the legislature's role under the second sentence,” Justice Edward Mansfield wrote in dissent.

'Thus, we have never before permitted damages lawsuits for alleged constitutional violations to go forward in the absence of underlying legislative authority or a recognized common law cause of action. It is simply stunning to me that the majority thinks we need to start allowing such lawsuits today in order to avoid ‘dramatically undermin(ing) effective judicial enforcement of the Iowa Bill of Rights.' Has judicial enforcement been lax up until now?”

In the dissent, joined by Justices Thomas Waterman and Bruce Zanger, Mansfield warned that while the impact of the Godfrey case may be limited, 'there should be no doubt about its far-reaching effects elsewhere. I anticipate many claims from current and former inmates seeking damages for wrongful incarceration.”

l Comments: (319) 398-8375; james.lynch@thegazette.com