UPDATES & ANALYSIS
A statistical review of the 2024-2025 Iowa Supreme Court term: Continued unpredictability in close cases
[This article by Matthew A. McGuire, Spencer S. Cady, and Charmaine Rusk was originally published in the August 2025 issue of The Iowa Lawyer magazine.]
The 2024-2025 term was the third term to feature the set of seven justices currently serving on the court. Our review of various statistical measurements shows certain reliable patterns of data as well as the lack of clear patterns in some instances. The number of overall opinions and number of non-unanimous cases has been remarkably consistent year-over-year. Some justices tend to agree with another at a consistent rate—but others’ level of agreement varies considerably from term to term. And in closely divided cases, there is very little predictability.
Opinions by the numbers
The 2024-2025 term of the Iowa Supreme Court concluded on June 27, 2025. Last year we wrote in this magazine about statistical similarities between the Court’s 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 terms, and this most recent term was more of the same. The Court decided 102 cases—very close to last term’s 103.
Similarly, including dissenting, concurring, and per curiam opinions, the Court issued a total of 140 opinions, including both majority opinions and separate opinions—about the same as last term’s 138 total opinions. This term featured 23 cases decided by non-unanimous opinion. As the chart below demonstrates, the Court in its current composition—following the appointment of Justice May prior to the 2022-2023 term—has been remarkably consistent in its overall output.
The 2024-2025 term featured 70 civil cases decided by opinion compared to 32 criminal cases, which is on the higher end of the ratios between civil and criminal cases from term to term. While the 2023-2024 term featured a high number of appeals not as a matter of right, this term the Court reverted to its historical norms by exercising jurisdiction over only five cases via interlocutory appeal, one case via certiorari, and five cases via discretionary review. Direct appeals represented 46% of the Court’s docket, while cases on further review from the Iowa Court of Appeals comprised 37%.
Total opinion authorship
Justice McDonald again authored the greatest number of opinions this term, authoring the most majority opinions (16) and the most concurring opinions (5). Also like the last term, Justice McDermott authored the fewest majority opinions (12) and the the most dissenting opinions (7). Chief Justice Christensen, meanwhile, authored no dissenting opinions for the second time in three terms. (Note that in the table below, the number of majority opinions sums to 101 because one case involved a 3-3 split and therefore there was no majority opinion.)
Frequency of Agreement
The data regarding how frequently the justices agree with one another in non-unanimous cases carries a great deal of “noise” from term to term given the limited sample sizes at play. However, it is worth noting where the data varies from term to term and where it tends to stay stable.
For example, there is a recognizable alignment between Chief Justice Christensen, Justice Waterman, and Justice Mansfield, who often agree with one another most frequently in divided cases. This pattern has been present for as long as these justices have served on the court. However, whereas Justices Waterman and Mansfield often agree with one another in greater than 80 or 90% of divided cases, this term they agreed on “only” 70% of divided cases. This was the lowest figure for this pair in many years. (Interestingly, Chief Justice Christensen and Justice Waterman have agreed with one another in 74% or 75% of non-unanimous cases for the third straight term, even though the exact fraction has been unique to each instance.)
Instead, for the first time it was Chief Justice Christensen and Justice Mansfield agreeing most frequently of any combination of justices—80% of the time. That 80% figure ties for the the lowest full-term measure of the justices who agreed most frequently in the decade our team has been tracking these statistics. The highest agreement rate is often well over 90%. During the 2023-2024 term, it was Justices McDonald and May who agreed with one another most frequently—90% of the time in non-unanimous cases. Yet during the 2024-2025 term, these justices only agreed slightly over half of the time in non-unanimous cases.
Another durable pattern that has emerged in recent years is the frequency with which Justices McDonald and McDermott have disagreed with one another in divided cases. This year, Justices McDonald and McDermott voted together on only 30% of non-unanimous cases—the lowest for any combination of Justices for two terms running.
This term’s data affirms a trend we have observed previously. While we can predict some common patterns, the specific alignments of justices in non-unanimous cases are highly unstable and can vary considerably from case to case. The 2024-2025 term demonstrated a further compression of the spread between the justices who agree with one another the most and those who agree with one another the least. The data plot below identifies each justice-pair’s frequency of agreement in divided cases for each of the last five terms. There are 21 such combinations for each term. The shaded box identifies the median 60% t of justice-pairs, and the yellow line identifies the median justice-pair. This shows a distinct bunching between 40% and 50% for this most recent term in particular—showing that it can be very difficult to predict, for any given unanimous case, which justices will be in the majority and which may dissent.
Frequency of Agreement in Divided Cases
Justice alignments in closely divided opinions
To illustrate this point, there were 14 “closely divided” opinions this term—where a difference in one vote would have swung the outcome of the case (including 4-2 and 3-3 dispositions). In one case, Avenarius and Avenarius v. State of Iowa, the Court split 3-3 and therefore did not issue a majority opinion. In the remaining 13 closely divided cases, there were 11 distinct combinations of four-justice majorities. We have never tracked any distribution this diffuse.
Unsurprisingly, each Justice found themselves in the majority in closely divided cases no more frequently than 64% of the time (Chief Justice Christensen, Justice Mansfield, Justice McDermott), and no less frequently than 43% of the time (Justices McDonald and May).
FEATURED POSTS
Iowa Supreme Court addresses standards for achieving service of process upon parties without a permanent residence
In Lucas v. Warhol, the Iowa Supreme Court examined service of process in a matter involving a defendant who might not have been able to get mail due to experiencing homelessness.
Analyzing pre-answer dismissal of claims following alleged student assault, Iowa Supreme Court affirms in part and reverses in part
In Doe v. Western Dubuque Community School District, parents and their child brought claims for loss of consortium, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty against staff members and officials for their child’s school district, as well as the district itself.
Iowa Court of Appeals interprets court discretion as to criminal sentencing statute
In State v. Cullum, the Iowa Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, reviewed a district court’s decisions to deny a motion to suppress, to deny a motion for a new trial, and to not suspend fines in an appeal sought by a criminal defendant.
Iowa Court of Appeals July 2025 Published Opinion Roundup
The Iowa Court of Appeals selects certain opinions for publication in the Northwestern Reporter. In July, the Court of Appeals selected three opinions for publication. Following are summaries of those opinions.
EDITORIAL TEAM
ABOUT
On Brief: Iowa’s Appellate Blog is devoted to appellate litigation with a focus on the Iowa Supreme Court, the Iowa Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.