Graceland in facie curiae

Experiential learning at Graceland University doesn’t get any more real than this: under heightened security and safety measures, current and prospective Criminal Justice and Forensic Psychology students were able to witness the Iowa Supreme Court at work right here on campus.

This insight into a complex legal process and demonstration of all the people and parts involved was also a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for everyone from the Graceland and Lamoni communities who attended the special session.

From the auditorium seats in the Shaw Center or via livestream from the stage-turned-courtroom, the public observers intently followed the oral arguments that were part of the Court’s proceedings in Case No. 24-0346, Kelly Brodie, et al. v. Iowa Department of Health and Human Services, et al. [Case summary below]. 

In an oral arguments session, the attorneys deliver presentations to the court to emphasize specific legal aspects. The appellant (party who filed the appeal) speaks first, then the appellee (opposing party). The appellant returns a brief rebuttal or reply argument. During oral arguments, the Supreme Court further directly queries attorneys to help clarify case nuances and ruling implications.

Following the hearing, everyone was invited to a reception sponsored by the District 5B Bar Association. Students, faculty, and community members were able to meet in facie curiae, face-to-face with the Supreme Court—and now be the ones to pose their questions to the justices: Chief Justice Susan L. Christensen, Justice Matthew McDermott, Justice Christopher McDonald, Justice Edward M. Mansfield, Justice David May, Justice Dana Oxley, and Justice Thomas D. Waterman.

Students of Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice Matt Schneider, MS majoring in Criminal Justice and Forensic Psychology like Alissa Caruso ’27, Clemente Delgado ’27, Breeanna Greer ’26 and Eric Williams ’27, took away a lot from this highly educational session. Explanations throughout the proceeding helped them understand the greater context and significance of the hearing. They found some surprising aspects and moments, were fascinated with the argumentation dynamics between the justices and the attorneys to maintain their lines of reasoning, and impressed by the preparation, precision, commitment and eloquence of the presenting parties.

“The most memorable part of the oral arguments to me was how quick the attorneys were when answering questions from the justices. They clearly came prepared and took no time answering or redirecting their oral argument. My personal takeaway is a better understanding of an appellate court and how it works. It was a great experience to witness a proceeding in session, and to be able to talk to the justices afterwards.” Alissa Caruso ’27

“I was surprised to see how fast-paced the trial was. It showed me you must be on your A-game, and must come well prepared. Preparation is everything! What I learned from this experience is: look to improve your public speaking and communication, and put your writing skills on point. Be fast, and be confident.” Clemente Delgado ’27

“Watching this session gave me a different, and really a deeper, understanding of how interpretation happens, along with how much understanding is a very crucial part of the whole court process. I know people get upset with being interrupted – I can relate as well – but the reason the justices do so is to make sure they are accurately understanding what is being said, and I think that is extremely important in these cases. This was a great opportunity to witness one of the most significant instances in which it is crucial to be able to be precise with your work by being able to make your point clear and also have the facts to support it.” Breeanna Greer ’26

“There were so many details that impressed me about the special session, from the precise questioning over the security guards to the lawyers’ binders! The most notable part of the oral argument to me was when Justice Mansfield and the lawyer were kind of going back and forth on whether there was a valid whistleblower claim in this case. The lawyer cited a precedent case, but the judge dismissed this argument. The justices were friendly and respectful when answering questions; Chief Justice Christensen was very transparent about the procedure, and openly explained the various steps involved in an appellate court session.” Eric Williams ’27

Thank you very much to the Iowa Supreme Court justices for allowing us this up close and personal glimpse into their decisive work at the highest judicial level!

***
Case summary:  Plaintiffs were administrators and doctors at the state-owned and -operated Glenwood Resource Center in Mills County. They claim they were unlawfully terminated from employment in violation of public policy – provided by Iowa, federal, and international law – for attempting to protect persons with disabilities from abuse, experimentation, and torture. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs failed to identify any clearly defined and well-recognized public policy that protects Plaintiffs’ conduct under Iowa law. This appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court centers on whether the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants.