Burnett v. Smith & Implied Rights of Action
![Burnett v. Smith & Implied Rights of Action](https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_square_limited_480/images.spreaker.com/original/ac419e1d99d77eb96eddfe68b585d177.jpg)
Sign up for free
Listen to this episode and many more. Enjoy the best podcasts on Spreaker!
Download and listen anywhere
Download your favorite episodes and enjoy them, wherever you are! Sign up or log in now to access offline listening.
Burnett v. Smith & Implied Rights of Action
This is an automatically generated transcript. Please note that complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Description
If a federal agent violates a citizen’s constitutional rights, does a justiciable cause of action arise? If yes, do federal courts have the power to award damages for constitutional violations?...
show moreThree state supreme courts have recently issued competing decisions on whether similar separation of powers concerns arise when state courts recognize rights under state constitutions.
Burnett v. Smith, issued on May 5, 2023, was the latest of these three decisions. The case arose after the plaintiff, garbage truck driver Cory Burnett, was pulled over by Iowa Department of Transportation Officer Philip Smith for a cracked windshield. Burnett was eventually arrested by Officer Smith for interference with official acts (Iowa Code §719.1). The charges were ultimately dismissed following a trial. Later, Burnett sued Officer Smith for, among other things, an unreasonable seizure directly under the Iowa Constitution. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Iowa unanimously affirmed the district court’s judgment against Burnett and, in the process, held that courts in Iowa cannot imply remedies directly under the Iowa constitution, overruling Godfrey v. State (898 N.W.2d, 2017).
In alignment with recent federal precedent, the court held that letting plaintiffs bring constitutional claims without the Iowa legislature first authorizing them “undermined the established allocation of responsibility between the legislative and the judicial branches of government.” This holding is at odds with decisions in Michigan (Bauserman v. Unemployment Insurance Agency) and Nevada (Mack v. Williams) where plaintiffs are allowed to sue without a legislative cause of action, provided certain conditions are met.
Are state courts allowed to recognize remedies directly under their state constitutions? Or are they similarly constrained by separation of powers? In this recorded webinar discussion Anya Bidwell and Erin Hawley consider these questions and more.
Featuring:
--Anya Bidwell, Attorney, Institute for Justice
--Erin Hawley, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
Information
Author | The Federalist Society |
Organization | The Federalist Society |
Website | - |
Tags |
Copyright 2024 - Spreaker Inc. an iHeartMedia Company