UPDATES & ANALYSIS

Iowa Supreme Court removes judicial magistrate from bench for racially derogatory and ‘demeaning and sophomoric’ statements

by Rox Laird | April 23, 2025

The Iowa Supreme Court removed a part-time judicial magistrate from the bench in a unanimous decision issued April 18 for violations of the Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct in making a racially derogatory statement in an open court proceeding and by making a “demeaning and sophomoric” justification in a written order denying an arrest warrant.

The decision written by Justice Dana Oxley and joined by all members of the Court concluded that David James Hanson violated the Iowa Canons of Judicial Ethics regarding a judge’s duty to act in a manner that promotes confidence in the judiciary and that a judge must perform his duties without bias or prejudice.

The Iowa Commission on Judicial Qualifications had recommended that Hanson be suspended for 90 days without pay and ordered to participate in mandatory anger management and bias training. But the Court took the rare step of removing him from office. It was only the second time since 2000 that the Court removed a judge.

While the Court agreed with the Commission that Hanson violated the Canons of Judicial Ethics, it expressed greater concern with his response to the complaints against him.

“Even more concerning than the clearly inappropriate statements Magistrate Hanson made in his written order and from the bench is his response to the Commission’s application for disciplinary action,” Justice Oxley wrote. “His complete lack of self-awareness and contrition reflects an unwillingness (or inability) to change his behavior and further undermines public respect and confidence in the judiciary.”

Hanson was appointed to the part-time position of judicial magistrate in Fayette County in 2022 after having practiced law for over 36 years. Magistrates, who are often the first or only judicial officers that members of the public encounter, preside over simple misdemeanors, traffic violations, search warrants, and small claims.

Six months after his appointment, a complaint was made against Hanson by the chief judge of the First Judicial District based on a written order Hanson had entered denying a request for an arrest warrant related to a criminal complaint involving allegations made by a 15-year-old boy that he had been the victim of a sexual assault by a 17-year-old girl.

Hanson explained in his written order that he did not find the boy credible in part because his inability to fend off his alleged female offender was due to her weight advantage, which Hanson suspected “most likely represents female obesity rather than muscular weight.” Hanson went on to write that the boy’s actions were “contrary to nature” because the “normal, hormone-ridden teenage boy’s reaction to being undressed by a teenage girl” is, “Alright! I’m gonna GET some!”

Hanson’s order went into graphic detail about the physiology of the male sex organ, explaining why “[c]ommon human experience” undermined the boy’s story. “John Doe knew exactly what [the girl] was doing to him, welcomed the advance, and both freely consented and actively participated in the sex acts.”

Less than a year later, while the first complaint was still pending, the Commission received another complaint against Magistrate Hanson. This complaint was also filed by the chief judge of the First Judicial District based on an email she received from a law school student working as a prosecuting intern for the summer with the Fayette County Attorney’s office.

As described by the intern: “During magistrate court on July 18, 2023, Judge Hanson was reviewing a case where the defendant was of Hispanic ethnicity. Judge Hanson noted that the charges were for no license and no insurance, and asked me, ‘Is this guy a wetback? An illegal?’ He also asked if I was sure this was the defendant’s real name and commented that the defendant probably stole someone’s ID card or identity.”

“It should go without saying that the term “w******” is a racially derogatory, highly offensive slur that does not belong in a courtroom—and especially not from the mouth of a judge,” Justice Oxley wrote. “We cannot overemphasize how inappropriate it was for Magistrate Hanson to use the slur— in open court—in reference to a Hispanic criminal defendant.”

The Court found Hanson’s response to this complaint to be “as—if not more—troubling than the underlying act itself,” Justice Oxley wrote, adding that Hanson does not recognize the extent of his misconduct and made no real effort to modify his behavior.

“Not only did Magistrate Hanson not consider his conduct and statements inappropriate when they were made, but he defended them throughout the Commission’s investigation, even up to the time of oral argument before our court,” Justice Oxley wrote. “He has not shown regret for his choice of words. He has not shown genuine remorse for the effect his statements likely had on the litigants. He has shown no aptitude for self-improvement. Indeed, he suggested in his brief that the Commission simply provide him with a list of “bad words” so that he can avoid them in conversation.”

Tags: Iowa Supreme Court 2024-25