Mitchell Cnty. v. Zimmerman
| Citation | 810 N.W.2d 1 |
| Decision Date | 03 February 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 10–1932.,10–1932. |
| Parties | MITCHELL COUNTY, Appellee, v. Matthew Hoover ZIMMERMAN, Appellant. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Recognized as Unconstitutional
Colin C. Murphy, Mason City, for appellant.
Mark L. Walk, Mitchell County Attorney, Osage, for appellee.MANSFIELD, Justice.
Members of the Old Order Groffdale Conference Mennonite Church are forbidden from driving tractors unless their wheels are equipped with steel cleats. A Mitchell County road protection ordinance forbids driving such vehicles on the highways. The question we must decide is whether the ordinance violates the religious rights of these church members under either the United States or the Iowa Constitution.
Although the issue is a close one, we conclude the ordinance as applied to church members violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.1 For the reasons stated herein, we find the ordinance is not of general applicability because it contains exemptions that are inconsistent with its stated purpose of protecting Mitchell County's roads. We also find the ordinance does not survive strict scrutiny because it is not the least restrictive means of serving what is claimed to be a compelling governmental interest in road protection. We therefore reverse and remand for entry of an order of dismissal.
On February 1, 2010, Matthew Zimmerman was cited for operating a Massey Ferguson tractor in violation of a Mitchell County road protection ordinance. The tractor had steel cleats or “lugs” on its wheels. The lugs, which comprise “the bar that makes contact with the highway as the tractor moves forward,” were several inches long and approximately an inch wide, and were attached to a rubber belt mounted on the wheel.
The ordinance in question was adopted by Mitchell County in September 2009. Its stated purpose is “to protect Mitchell County hard surfaced roads.” The ordinance provides:
No person shall drive over the hard surfaced roadways, including but not limited to cement, concrete and blacktop roads, of Mitchell County, or any political subdivision thereof, a tractor or vehicle equipped with steel or metal tires equipped with cleats, ice picks, studs, spikes, chains or other projections of any kind or steel or metal wheels equipped with cleats, ice picks, studs, spikes, chains, or other projections of any kind.
Mitchell County, Iowa, Mitchell Cnty. Road Prot. Ordinance (Sept. 22, 2009).
Zimmerman moved to dismiss the citation on the ground that his constitutional rights to free exercise of religion under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I section 3 of the Iowa Constitution had been violated. A hearing was held before a magistrate, who found Zimmerman guilty of violating the ordinance and denied the motion. Zimmerman appealed the ruling to the district court. Because no recording of the hearing before the magistrate was available, a new hearing was held.
Eli Zimmerman, a fellow member of the Old Order Groffdale Conference Mennonite Church, testified at the district court hearing in support of the motion to dismiss. He explained the use of steel wheels is a religious practice and a church rule of the Old Order of Groffdale Mennonite Conference. Zimmerman cited Romans 12:2 as the biblical passage from which the rule derives. 2 The practice of using steel wheels on tractors dates back at least forty years. The church determined farm tractors could be used in addition to the traditional horse and buggy, but would have to be refitted with steel wheels to maintain small-scale farming and a close-knit community. If a church member drove a tractor that did not have steel wheels, he or she would be barred from the church. The steel wheel rule helps insure that tractors are not used for pleasure purposes and thereby displace the horse and buggy.
Zimmerman testified that it is permissible for church members to hire other persons to drive them for business purposes in vehicles with rubber tires. Also, a church member could hire someone with a rubber-tired tractor to haul his or her farm wagons to market.3 However, this leads to “a lot of inconveniences.” In addition, a church member could use horses for hauling purposes, if it were possible to make a living doing so. In short, it has long been a religious requirement of the Old Order of Groffdale Mennonite Conference that any motorized tractor driven by a church member be equipped with steel wheels. According to Zimmerman, “The religious practice, it has to be steel hitting the surface, [be] it soil, [be] it highway, [be] it concrete.”
The prohibition on driving motorized vehicles with rubber tires is not the only church rule affecting modern conveniences. Zimmerman testified that the use of radio, television, and computers is also forbidden in his religious community.
Over the years, to minimize possible road damage, the steel cleats and lugs have been made wider and have been mounted on rubber belts to provide cushioning. In Mitchell County, the Mennonites use county roads mainly when they need to haul their produce to the produce market. Both parties conceded that for some time the Mennonites and the County had peacefully coexisted, and the County did not object to the Mennonites' use of steel wheels. However, in 2009, the County embarked on a $9 million road resurfacing project, where the existing roads were “white-topped,” or covered with concrete. The County had never used this new method of repaving before.
Two Mitchell County officials testified at the hearing that the steel wheels have damaged their newly white-topped roads by causing cracks and taking paint off them. Photos introduced by the County showed some cracks as well as markings where the steel wheels had come into contact with the road surface. As explained by the county engineer, “Because the steel is harder than the aggregates in that material—in the concrete surfaces and the asphalt surfaces, ... it will wear that surface off.” 4
Accordingly, in September 2009, the County adopted its road protection ordinance. The ordinance provides that violators are subject to a maximum fine of $500 or 30 days in jail, or both, and a civil penalty may also be imposed “equal to the amount necessary to repair the damage to the road.”
Under existing state law, no tire on a vehicle moved on a highway is allowed to have “any block, stud, flange, cleat, or spike or any other protuberances of any material other than rubber,” except for:
1. Farm machinery with tires having protuberances which will not injure the highway.
2. Tire chains of reasonable proportions upon any vehicle when required for safety because of snow, ice, or other conditions tending to cause a vehicle to skid.
3. Pneumatic tires with inserted ice grips or tire studs projecting not more than one-sixteenth inch beyond the tread of the traction surface of the tire upon any vehicle from November 1 of each year to April 1 of the following year, except that a school bus and fire department emergency apparatus may use such tires at any time.
Iowa Code § 321.442 (2009). However, a Mitchell County supervisor testified that “the penalty there is only a $10 fine, which ... isn't prohibitive really, ... so we enacted ... this ordinance to protect our roads.” The County concedes that its ordinance, which expressly states “Iowa Code § 321.442 shall continue to remain in full force and effect,” is intended to mirror the Iowa Code provision substantively, while imposing a stiffer sanction for violations. Mitchell Cnty. Road Prot. Ordinance.
The district court overruled Matthew Zimmerman's motion to dismiss. It found “the use of steel wheels on tractors is a matter of religious conviction for members of the GC church.” It also determined that the Mitchell County ordinance
substantially burdens this religious practice.... These tractors are used to do field work, transport grain and produce to market, and are shared amongst neighbors and family members. All of these activities require that the tractors be driven on hard surfaced county roads. While it is admitted that other practices could be adopted to accomplish these same tasks, this ordinance will substantially burden the Mennonites ... by requiring them to find other modes of transporting both their goods to market and their tractors to fields.
However, the court held the Mitchell County ordinance was both neutral and generally applicable. It was not motivated by religious animosity but “to protect Mitchell County's investment in resurfacing their roads,” and “it treats secular and religious conduct equally.” The court therefore sustained the ordinance against Zimmerman's First Amendment challenge, citing Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990).5
The district court then turned to Zimmerman's arguments based on article I section 3 of the Iowa Constitution. The court held that even if, hypothetically, that provision required the ordinance to be supported by a compelling state interest, such an interest had been established here. As the court stated, “protecting the integrity of the county's roads” from damage is a compelling state interest, and the ordinance is “the least restrictive means” because it only disallows steel wheeled vehicles “on the hard surfaced roads.”
We granted Zimmerman's application for discretionary review.
We review constitutional claims de novo. Zaber v. City of Dubuque, 789 N.W.2d 634, 636 (Iowa 2010).
Zimmerman contends the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss based on the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The First Amendment provides:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Planned Parenthood of the Heartland v. Reynolds ex rel. State
...In re L.M. , 654 N.W.2d 502, 505–07 (Iowa 2002), and In re Det. of Garren , 620 N.W.2d 275, 286 (Iowa 2000), with Mitchell County v. Zimmerman , 810 N.W.2d 1, 16–18 (Iowa 2012), In re A.W. , 741 N.W.2d 793, 811 (Iowa 2007), Spiker v. Spiker , 708 N.W.2d 347, 352 (Iowa 2006), In re S.A.J.B. ......
-
Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. v. Reynolds ex rel. State
...burden is on the government to show that the law is ‘narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.’ "); Mitchell County v. Zimmerman , 810 N.W.2d 1, 16 (Iowa 2012) (noting that under strict scrutiny, the government "has the burden to show that the ordinance serves a compelling sta......
-
Stormans Inc. v. Selecky
...170 F.3d 173 (3rd Cir.1999) (refusing to pay taxes); May v. Baldwin, 109 F.3d 557 (9th Cir.1997) (dreadlocks); Mitchell County v. Zimmerman, 810 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2012) (steel cleats on tractor tires). 12. The Supreme Court is demonstrably and understandably reticent to recognize new “fundamen......
-
State v. Baldon
...the federal constitutional issues undecided. Cox, 781 N.W.2d at 772;Tague, 676 N.W.2d at 206. On the other hand, in Mitchell County v. Zimmerman, 810 N.W.2d 1, 18 (Iowa 2012), and Kurth, 813 N.W.2d at 281, we addressed federal constitutional issues in cases involving religious liberty and s......
-
Vaccine Mandates and Religion at the Supreme Court
...Fraternal Order of Police v. Newark, 170 F.3d 359, 365-66 (3d Cir. 1999) (police no-beard requirement); Mitchell County v. Zimmerman, 810 N.W.2d 1, 15-16 (Iowa 2012) (forbidding anyone, including religious dissenters, from operating vehicles with “steel-cleated wheels” on paved public roads......
-
Generally Applicable Law and the Free Exercise of Religion
...F.3d 727, 738-40 (6th Cir. 2012). 128. Axson-Flynn v. Johnson, 356 F.3d 1277, 1297-99 (10th Cir. 2004). 129. Mitchell County v. Zimmerman, 810 N.W.2d 1, 4-5 (Iowa 130. Id. at 15. 131. Id. at 15-16. 132. Horen v. Commonwealth, 479 S.E.2d 553, 556-57 (Va. Ct. App. 1997). 133. Keeler v. Mayor ......