New Precedent: Judicial Officers’ Unwavering Impartiality and the Necessity of Removal for Bias and Prejudice

Introduction

In In the Matter of Hon. David James Hanson, the Iowa Supreme Court considered a disciplinary application filed by the Iowa Commission on Judicial Qualifications against Magistrate Hanson of the First Judicial District. The case arose from two separate incidents in which Magistrate Hanson (1) issued a written order denying an arrest warrant for an alleged male victim of sexual assault that was rife with disparaging, gender-stereotyped commentary and (2) used a racially derogatory slur in open court concerning a Hispanic criminal defendant. The Commission charged him with violating Canons 1 and 2 (Rules 51:1.2 and 51:2.3) of the Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct, and recommended a ninety-day suspension plus mandatory training. Magistrate Hanson neither contested the facts nor expressed genuine remorse. The Supreme Court granted the application and, emphasizing the unacceptability of bias or even the appearance of bias by any judicial officer, ordered his removal from office.

Summary of the Judgment

Justice Oxley, writing for a unanimous Court, held that Magistrate Hanson’s written order and bench remarks violated:

Rule 51:1.2 (Promotion of Confidence in the Judiciary): His derogatory characterization of a teenage male sexual-assault victim and use of a racial epithet in open court undermined public confidence, impartiality, integrity, and neutrality.
Rule 51:2.3(A)–(B) (Bias, Prejudice, Harassment): His stereotyping comments and slur evidenced impermissible bias, bringing the judiciary into disrepute.

Because Magistrate Hanson showed no self-awareness, contrition, or willingness to change—refusing even to contest the charges—the Court concluded removal from office was the only appropriate sanction to protect the judiciary’s integrity.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

In re Inquiry Concerning Patrick McCormick, 639 N.W.2d 12 (Iowa 2002): Emphasized judicial independence, integrity, and neutrality as “crown jewels” of the judiciary.
In re Inquiry Concerning Sevcik, 877 N.W.2d 707 (Iowa 2016): Confirmed that Iowa’s Code of Judicial Conduct applies equally to magistrates and judges.
Liteky v. U.S., 510 U.S. 540 (1994): Defined when extrajudicial sources or animus may support bias challenges.
In re Russo, 231 A.3d 563 (N.J. 2020): Removed a judge whose questioning of a sexual-assault victim was demeaning and breached judicial decorum.
In re Mulroy, 731 N.E.2d 120 (N.Y. 2000): Removed a judge who used ethnic slurs and exhibited intemperate conduct.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s de novo review confirmed that Magistrate Hanson’s conduct violated:

Rule 51:1.2 (Integrity, Impartiality, Appearance of Impropriety).
• His written order denied a warrant by relying on gender stereotypes and personal anecdotes rather than the probable-cause affidavit.
• His bench comments used “wetback,” an undisputed racial slur, reflecting prejudicial animus.
Rule 51:2.3(A)–(B) (Bias, Prejudice, Harassment).
• The order included negative stereotyping of a teenage male victim.
• The open-court slur and identity-theft insinuation about a Hispanic defendant were direct manifestations of impermissible bias.

Under the ten-factor sanctioning framework (pattern of misconduct, official capacity, lack of remorse, harm to public confidence, etc.), removal was warranted because Magistrate Hanson repeatedly failed to uphold the impartiality and integrity demanded of every judge.

Impact

This decision strengthens the message that:

Judicial officers—even part-time magistrates—are bound by the full Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct.
Derogatory language or reliance on personal, stereotypical assumptions in judicial decisions will not be tolerated.
Public confidence is paramount: judges must not only be impartial but must be—and appear—impartial.
Unwillingness to recognize or remedy misconduct will lead to the most severe sanction, removal from office.

Future disciplinary proceedings will look to this case when judges’ words betray bias or prejudice, underscoring the judiciary’s zero-tolerance policy for anything less than unfailing neutrality.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Canon 1 / Rule 51:1.2: “A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.” This means judges must avoid impropriety and even the appearance of impropriety.
Canon 2 / Rule 51:2.3: “A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office…without bias or prejudice.” It prohibits epithets, slurs, negative stereotyping, or any conduct that suggests partiality.
Magistrate vs. Judge: Magistrates in Iowa are part-time judicial officers with authority over preliminary hearings, minor criminal cases, warrants, and small claims. They must comply with the same ethical canons as full-time judges.
“Convincing Preponderance” Standard: Disciplinary violations must be proved by evidence that is more convincing than not, though less than “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Conclusion

In re Hanson establishes a clear, new precedent: any judicial officer who engages in sexist or racist commentary in the courtroom—or in written orders—and who refuses to acknowledge or remediate that misconduct, faces removal. The ruling reaffirms that judges serve as guardians of public confidence in the rule of law and must embody the highest standards of integrity and impartiality. This decision will resonate widely, guiding courts to hold themselves and their colleagues strictly accountable to the ethical commitments that underpin an independent judiciary.