FedSoc Forums

Burnett v. Smith & Implied Rights of Action


Listen Later


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? These questions have been considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in cases like Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics (1971) and Egbert v. Boule (2022).

Three 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
...more
View all episodesView all episodes
Download on the App Store

FedSoc ForumsBy The Federalist Society

  • 4.5
  • 4.5
  • 4.5
  • 4.5
  • 4.5

4.5

82 ratings


More shows like FedSoc Forums

View all
We the People by National Constitution Center

We the People

1,096 Listeners

Cato Daily Podcast by Cato Institute

Cato Daily Podcast

962 Listeners

FedSoc Events by The Federalist Society

FedSoc Events

88 Listeners

SCOTUScast by The Federalist Society

SCOTUScast

106 Listeners

City Journal Audio by Manhattan Institute

City Journal Audio

596 Listeners

Faculty Division Bookshelf by The Federalist Society

Faculty Division Bookshelf

8 Listeners

Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Cooke by Ricochet

Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Cooke

675 Listeners

U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments by Oyez

U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

677 Listeners

The Editors by National Review

The Editors

4,778 Listeners

Heritage Explains by Heritage Podcast Network

Heritage Explains

822 Listeners

RTP's Fourth Branch Podcast by The Federalist Society

RTP's Fourth Branch Podcast

28 Listeners

Necessary & Proper Podcast by The Federalist Society

Necessary & Proper Podcast

47 Listeners

The McCarthy Report by National Review

The McCarthy Report

2,801 Listeners

Advisory Opinions by The Dispatch

Advisory Opinions

3,754 Listeners

Amarica's Constitution by Akhil Reed Amar

Amarica's Constitution

372 Listeners

Capital Record by National Review

Capital Record

430 Listeners

Divided Argument by Will Baude, Dan Epps

Divided Argument

666 Listeners

Supreme Court Oral Arguments by scotusstats.com

Supreme Court Oral Arguments

17 Listeners