UPDATES & ANALYSIS

Divided Iowa Supreme Court upholds state law governing restoration of firearms rights

by Rox Laird | November 20, 2024

In its first decision addressing a 2022 constitutional amendment that for the first time recognizes a “fundamental” right to bear arms in the Iowa Constitution, a divided Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the Pottawattamie District Court’s ruling denying an Iowa man’s bid to have his firearms rights restored after those rights had been revoked.

The appellant, identified in this case as N.S., lost his right to possess firearms under federal law when he was involuntarily committed for mental health treatment at the age of 16 by his parents on grounds of his serious mental impairment, chronic substance abuse, and threats of harm to himself and others.

In 2022, when he was 31 years old, N.S. petitioned the district court under Iowa Code section 724.31 to have firearm rights restored. The State and the Pottawattamie County Attorney opposed his petition, and after an evidentiary hearing, the district court concluded N.S. failed to prove he “will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to the public safety,” and denied the petition.

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court in an opinion written by Justice Thomas Waterman and joined in full by Chief Justice Susan Christensen and in part by Justices Christopher McDonald and Dana Oxley. Justice McDonald filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Oxley, while Justice Matthew McDermott filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Edward Mansfield and David May.

A key question before the Court in this case was how to apply the amendment’s requirement that “Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny,” the most demanding test of a restriction on a constitutional right. For a statute to survive a strict-scrutiny challenge, it must be shown that the statute is “narrowly drawn to serve a compelling state interest.”

Four justices – Chief Justice Christensen and Justices Waterman, McDonald and Oxley – agreed with the district court’s decision denying N.S.’s petition for restoration of his firearms rights. The Court noted that N.S. did not provide a “clean bill of current mental health” and was willing to “mislead by omission” regarding his mental health and prescription history in an attempt to gain a firearms license. The Court also rejected N.S.’s argument that years of illegal possession and use of firearms supported a restoration of N.S.’s rights to possess or use firearms in Iowa. For these, among other reasons, the Court found that the district court did not err in finding that N.S. did not meet his burden to show that he would not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety.

N.S. argued that following enactment of the 2022 constitutional amendment, the relevant Iowa statute—section 724.31—should be interpreted to place the burden on the state, rather than upon N.S. While the four justices in the majority agreed that section 724.31 may place the burden of proof on the applicant consistent with the Iowa Constitution, Justice Waterman and Justice McDonald offered differing rationales for their conclusions in separate opinions. Justice Waterman, writing only for himself and Chief Justice Christensen, concluded that section 724.31 passed strict scrutiny as required by the 2022 amendment. Justice Waterman reasoned that the statute was supported by a compelling interest in preventing gun violence and suicide, and that the procedural regime imposed in connection with petitions to restore firearm rights was narrowly tailored to serve this interest. Justice Waterman noted that no other court had found that the federal Second Amendment or any similar state constitutional provision required shifting the burden of proof to the government to propose restoration in the manner suggested by N.S.

Justices McDonald and Oxley concurred in the judgment and agreed that section 724.31 did not offend the Iowa Constitution, but did not join Waterman’s discussion of why section 724.31 meets strict scrutiny. Instead, Justice McDonald argued in his concurring opinion that Article I, section 1A’s strict scrutiny requirement does not even apply to N.S’s case because Iowa’s statute under which he seeks restoration of his firearms rights is not a restriction of that right but an expansion. N.S. lost his firearms rights under federal law and Iowa’s statute provides an opportunity for him to have them restored.

Justice McDermott, joined by Justices Mansfield and May, dissented from the majority, arguing that if strict scrutiny were properly applied, the burden of proof would be on the State, not the petitioner, because the point of strict scrutiny is to place the burden of justification on the party that favors a restriction of constitutional rights, not the other way around. As a result, Justice McDermott wrote, he would vacate the district court’s order denying relief to N.S. and remand the case for the district court to evaluate the evidence with the burden of persuasion on the state.

Tags: Iowa Supreme Court 2024-25