The rule finding constitutionality in close cases cannot control the present one, however, because, with all respect, this is not a close case. When all the varnish is removed, the challenged statutory scheme amounts to a commandeering of valuable property rights without compensating the owners, and sacrificing those rights for the economic advantage of a few . . . . The same public that constituted the other branches of state government to make political decisions with an eye on economic consequences expects the court to resolve constitutional challenges on a purely legal basis. We recognize that political and economic fallout from our holding will be substantial. In the final analysis, the Iowa Supreme Court decision may not just affect Iowa's right to farm laws.
All states have right to farm laws.
Many are similar to Iowa's law that was struck down. Iowa's Supreme Court used both the U.S. and Iowa Constitutions as a basis for declaring the nuisance suit protection unconstitutional. In addition, the Justices used case law from several states and the federal courts in arriving at their decision. While this decision could be appealed and overturned in federal courts or ignored by other states, the case has been watched closely by agricultural attorneys in states across the nation that possess similar agricultural districts. So, the decision may well have implications nationally.