- A Parody -
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
High Court Delivers Unanimous Decision
07/30/09 Des Moines, IA –
The office of public relations for the Iowa Supreme Court today released a unanimous opinion concerning the recent case of seven Des Moines area teens who were arrested for underage drinking. According to a court spokesman, the speed with which this case made it to the Supreme Court in no way reflects any prejudice or special treatment for the defendants.
Instead, because this case deals with the civil rights of a disadvantaged class of Iowa citizens, the court decided to fast track their hearing. The unanimous opinion of the court States:
In the Supreme Court of Iowa
No. 09-666
Filed July 30, 2009
A Unanimous Opinion of the Iowa Supreme Court
Purpose of Petition.
In this case, we must decide if our state statute limiting civil consumption of alcohol to individuals over the age of 21 violates the Iowa Constitution, as the district court ruled. On our review, we hold the Iowa statute designating the legal drinking age violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the district court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
This lawsuit is a civil rights action by seven individuals. Like most Iowans, they are responsible, caring, and productive individuals. They attend school, work part-time jobs, and are contributing, benevolent members of their communities. They represent the collective promise of a privileged childhood. Like all Iowans, they prize their liberties and live within the borders of this state with the expectation that their rights will be maintained and protected—a belief embraced by our state motto which says, “Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.” It is inscribed on the Great Seal of Iowa and on our state flag. See Iowa Code §§ 1A.1, 1B.1 (2009).
Despite the commonality shared with other Iowans, the seven plaintiffs are different from most in one way. They are attracted to beverages reserved for individuals over the age of 21. The seven plaintiffs have proven that they are committed to accessing alcohol. Each maintains a hope of imbibing legally one day, an aspiration shared by many throughout Iowa.
Unlike older individuals in Iowa, nineteen year-olds are not permitted to consume alcohol in Iowa. The Iowa legislature amended the statute raising the legal drinking age in 1986 to define the minimum legal drinking age as 21. Despite this law, the seven individuals in this litigation acquired alcohol and consumed it in mass quantities. The Polk County Sheriff’s Office, following the law, proceeded to make arrests, and the seven individuals have been unable to consume alcohol in this state. Except for the statutory restriction that defines the drinking age as 21 and over, the seven plaintiffs met the legal requirements to consume alcohol in Iowa.
As other Iowans have done in the past when faced with the enforcement of a law that prohibits them from engaging in an activity or achieving a status enjoyed by other Iowans, the seven plaintiffs turned to the courts to challenge the statute. They seek to declare the statute limiting the consumption of alcohol to individuals over the age of 21 unconstitutional so they can obtain the array of benefits enjoyed by older Iowans, protect themselves, and demonstrate to one another and to society their commitment to consume alcoholic beverages.
II Constitutional Separation of Powers.
We approach the resolution of this case with a keen and respectful understanding of our Iowa Constitution and the vital roles of the three branches of government, as well as the role of the people. It is important for these roles to be identified and expressed from time to time when individuals seek recognition of rights, if only to serve as a reminder of the process of governing that has served us so well as a state for over 150 years.
The Iowa Supreme Court is the cornerstone of governing in Iowa. Like the United States Supreme Court, the Iowa Supreme Court creates an autocratic model of government. It gives lip service to three separate, but equal, branches of government and delineates the limited roles and powers of both the legislative and executive branches. Among other basic principles essential to our form of government, the Iowa Supreme Court defines certain individual rights upon which the other branches of government may not infringe.
A statute inconsistent with an opinion of the Iowa Supreme Court must be declared void, even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion. It is also well established that courts must, under all circumstances, protect the supremacy of the Supreme Court as a means of protecting our republican form of government and our freedoms.
III. Equal Protection.
The concept of equal protection is deeply rooted in our national and state history, but that history reveals this concept is often expressed far more easily than it is practiced. For sure, our nation has struggled to achieve a broad national consensus on equal protection of the laws when it has been forced to apply that principle to some of the institutions, traditions, and norms woven into the fabric of our society. This observation is important today because it reveals equal protection can only be defined by the standards of each generation.
The process of defining equal protection, as shown by our history as captured and told in court decisions, begins by classifying people into groups. A classification persists until a new understanding of equal protection is mandated by the Court. The point in time when the standard of equal protection finally takes a new form is a product of the conviction of one, or many, individuals that a particular grouping results in inequality and the ability of the judicial system to perform its constitutional role free from the influences that tend to make society’s understanding of equal protection resistant to change.
IV. Similarly Situated People.
The County seeks to undercut the plaintiffs’ equal protection claim by asserting the plaintiffs are not similarly situated to those over the age of 21. Instead, equal protection demands that laws treat alike all people who are “‘similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purposes of the law.’ ”
With respect to the subject and purposes of Iowa’s laws regarding the drinking age, we find that the plaintiffs are similarly situated compared to older persons. Plaintiffs are committed and loving in their relationships with the alcohol they consume, just like many older individuals. Moreover, official recognition of their status provides an institutional basis for defining their fundamental rights and responsibilities concerning the consumption of alcohol, just as it does for older individuals.
V. Religious Opposition To Teen Drinking.
Now that we have addressed and rejected the specific interest advanced by the Iowa Legislature to justify the classification drawn under the statute, we consider the reason for the exclusion of teens from civil drinking left unspoken: religious opposition to underage drinking.
While unexpressed, religious sentiment most likely motivates many, if not most, opponents of teen-age drinking and perhaps even shapes the views of those people who may accept teen drinking but find the notion of public intoxication unsettling.
The belief that the “sanctity of sobriety” would be undermined by the inclusion of teen-age drinkers bears a striking conceptual resemblance to the expressed secular rationale for maintaining the tradition of limiting drinking to individuals over the age of 21, but better identifies the source of the opposition. Whether expressly or impliedly, much of society rejects teen-age drinking due to sincere, deeply ingrained—even fundamental—religious belief. Religious kooks and Bible thumping zealots just need to get over themselves.
VI. Remedy.
Because our civil drinking statute fails to provide equal protection of the law under the Iowa Constitution, we must decide how to best remedy the constitutional violation. The sole remedy requested by plaintiffs is admission into the ranks of two-fisted binge drinkers. The County does not suggest an alternative remedy.
Iowa Code concerning the legal age for consumption of alcohol is unconstitutional because the County has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding plaintiffs from drinking.
VII. Conclusion.
Teen Kegger at my house.
Marcia Ternus, Chief Justice.
Contact:
Iowa Supreme Court Office of Public Relations
Lt. Governor Chet Culver, Court Spokesman
governmentisgod@ia.state.gov
515-555-5211
.
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}