The Iowa Supreme Court made a rare appearance in Fairfield on Tuesday, April 21st, holding a special session at Fairfield High School’s auditorium as part of its longstanding “Court on the Road” program. The evening drew a large crowd of community members, students, and legal professionals who witnessed a real oral argument before the state’s highest court, followed by a question-and-answer session with the justices and a public reception.
The Case
The court heard oral arguments in State of Iowa v. Kevin Charles Lind, a consolidated case from Polk County District Court involving a law enforcement sting operation and the reach of Iowa’s human trafficking statute. The State of Iowa is the appellant in the case, meaning it is the party that lost at the district court level and is appealing those rulings to the Supreme Court. Representing the State was Louis Sloven of Des Moines, an attorney with the Iowa Attorney General’s Office. Kevin Charles Lind is the appellee — the party who prevailed in the lower court and is defending those rulings on appeal. He was represented by attorneys Jonathan Causey and Paul Statler, also of Des Moines.
Before arguments began, Chief Justice Christensen took a moment to address the audience directly. She acknowledged that courts do not get to choose only comfortable cases, and that because a person’s liberty was at stake, the facts of the evening’s case could not be softened or avoided. “We want to be mindful that some people in the audience, particularly younger attendees, may find parts of the discussion uncomfortable,” she said. “Please feel free to step out at any time if you need to. We will not be offended.”
The case centered on whether Iowa’s human trafficking law applies when a defendant is arrested in a sting operation where no actual trafficking victim exists. Iowa Code section 710A.1(4)(b) includes “attempting to purchase” commercial sexual services from a “person engaged in human trafficking.” In this case, the person posing as a trafficker was an undercover officer pretending to be the mother of a fictional 13-year-old girl.
According to the case summary provided to attendees, Kevin Lind contacted a woman in August 2024 and asked her to help him find a mother willing to accept payment for sexual access to her young daughter. Rather than assist him, the woman contacted law enforcement, which set up the sting operation. An undercover officer posed as a mother with a fictional 13-year-old daughter. Through messaging, Lind negotiated the details and arrived at a motel at the agreed-upon time carrying over $1,500 in cash. He was arrested on the spot.
The State originally charged Lind with human trafficking as a Class A felony — which carries mandatory life imprisonment with no possibility of parole — on the basis that he attempted to purchase a minor for commercial sex. The district court dismissed the charge, ruling that because the supposed victim did not actually exist and no real trafficking operation was involved, the statute as written at the time did not cover the situation. The State later filed a second case reduced to a Class B felony, which the district court also dismissed, finding that Lind and the woman he contacted were not “associated in fact” for a shared purpose since their goals were fundamentally opposed — one wanted to abuse a child, the other wanted to report him. Both dismissals were appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court.
Here are expanded versions of both attorneys’ argument paragraphs with more detail worked in:
During oral arguments, Sloven argued on behalf of the State that attempt crimes have never recognized factual impossibility as a defense — meaning it should not matter that no actual victim existed, as long as Lind intended to purchase sex involving a trafficked minor and took substantial steps toward that goal. “Attempt to do something always references what the defendant attempted to do,” Sloven told the justices. He argued that the word “attempt” in the statute functions as a transitive verb that sweeps in everything that follows it — meaning all of the conditions in the statute become things the defendant must have intended, not things that must actually exist in reality. He also warned that affirming the lower court’s ruling would effectively undermine law enforcement sting operations targeting child trafficking, noting that the district court’s interpretation would essentially neutralize any attempt statute that does not explicitly include law enforcement impersonation language. When pressed about whether the legislature’s subsequent amendment to the statute signaled that the original version did not cover the situation, Sloven suggested the change could equally be read as the legislature making “doubly sure” of an intent that was always there rather than filling a gap.
Defense attorney Causey countered that the statute as written at the time required an actual victim and an actual trafficking operation — not just the defendant’s belief that one existed. “Criminal statutes like this that have no ambiguity with them whatsoever need to be applied as such,” Causey argued. He pointed to the statute’s specific language — including defined terms like “services,” “victim,” and “person engaged in human trafficking” — arguing that each element was an objective requirement the State had to prove, not merely something the defendant needed to believe. He noted that in the very same 2012 legislative session that added the attempt language to the human trafficking statute, the legislature also enacted a separate statute that explicitly included law enforcement impersonation language for a related offense — suggesting the omission of that language from the trafficking statute was deliberate. Causey also argued that if the court found the statute ambiguous, the rule of lenity — which requires ambiguous criminal statutes to be read in favor of the defendant — should apply. He acknowledged that the legislature has since amended the statute to cover sting operations, but said that was exactly how the system is supposed to work. “When a statute’s language limits the state’s reach, the remedy lies with the legislature, not the courts,” he said.
Following arguments, Chief Justice Susan Christensen announced the case was submitted and briefly explained the process the court follows — the justices will conference privately, one will be assigned to draft the majority opinion, and drafts will circulate among all seven justices until a majority agrees on a final version. The court aims to issue all opinions by June 30th of the current term.
Q&A With the Justices
After the case was submitted, the justices opened the floor to questions from the audience on any topic except the case heard that evening. The exchange was lively and wide-ranging. Audience members asked how the court manages its workload — the justices noted they handle approximately 100 to 110 cases per year and are one of the most leanly-staffed state supreme courts in the country, with each justice having only one law clerk. Justice Christopher McDonald noted the court currently has a task force studying artificial intelligence and is developing rules governing how AI may be used in the judicial process, with data security and confidentiality being the top priorities.
The justices were also asked whether any of their cases had been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Edward Mansfield noted that no cases during the current justices’ tenure had been taken up by the nation’s highest court, and that because the Lind case involves purely a question of Iowa statutory interpretation, there would be no basis for federal review.
Other questions touched on how the court chooses which cases to retain versus transfer to the Iowa Court of Appeals, what the hardest part of being a justice is — Chief Justice Christensen said the isolation of the job is one of the most difficult aspects — and whether Iowa courts have a backlog problem. Justice McDonald said the average time from submission to opinion filing is approximately 58 days, and that the court commits to resolving all cases submitted within a given term by June 30th.
The justices also shared where each of them attended law school — answers included Yale Law School, the University of Iowa College of Law, Drake University Law School, the University of California Berkeley, and Mississippi College of Law, among others — leading to a light-hearted exchange between Chief Justice Christensen, a Drake Law graduate, and her colleagues.
Court on the Road
Chief Justice Christensen explained the history behind the “Court on the Road” program during the evening’s remarks. The program began in May 2011, following a period of significant upheaval on the court that resulted in three justices being voted out and replaced. The then-chief justice, Mark Cady, launched the initiative to bring the court into communities across Iowa and show citizens firsthand what the court does. Since 2011, the court has visited 42 communities and 266 schools, colleges, and universities across the state.
The chief justice also took a moment to recognize Steve Davis, a member of the judicial branch staff who has been instrumental in organizing the Court on the Road program since its inception. Tuesday’s visit marked Davis’s final Court on the Road appearance before his retirement at the end of June. The justices gave him a standing ovation. “Steve Davis deserved the Supreme Court standing up for him,” Christensen said. “We’re going to miss you incredibly.”
Reception and Community Response
Following the Q&A, the court and attorneys joined attendees in Fairfield High School’s commons area for a public reception. Cookies were provided by Heidi Grunwald’s Advanced Foods class at Fairfield High School, and water was provided by Snyder Water. The justices mingled freely with students and community members, though judicial ethics prevented them from discussing the case argued that evening.
Jefferson County Bar Association President Lucas Helling introduced the court and helped organize the event alongside Bar Association Secretary Vanessa Willman and Fairfield Area Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Mendy McAdams. Security was provided by the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office and the Fairfield Police Department. The court extended special thanks to Fairfield Community School District Superintendent Zach Wigle, Fairfield High School Principal Mallory Mahon, Assistant Principal and Activities Director Jeff Courtright, Head Custodian Norma Davis, Custodian Scott Buxton, Technology Director John Grunwald, Vocal Music Teacher Zach Reiter, Industrial Arts Teacher Meshari Alnouri, and Activities Assistant Sarah Godwin for their help with planning, sound, lighting, and stage setup. The Fairfield Media Center provided a livestream of the proceedings.
The evening also included a pre-session dinner catered by Sweet and Saucy at the Fairfield Arts and Convention Center, with door greeters provided by Fairfield Chamber ambassadors.
District 8A Associate Judge Pat McAvan, who also served as Jefferson County Assistant Attorney from 1999 to 2023, was among those who attended. “It was great to see a big crowd watch the arguments attentively, ask insightful questions, and engage with the justices of the Iowa Supreme Court,” McAvan said. “Hopefully people left with a greater understanding of this part of the legal system.”
McAdams reflected on the significance of the evening for the Fairfield community. “The Chamber was incredibly proud to have played a role in facilitating such a historic moment for our community,” she said. “Hosting the Supreme Court in Fairfield was both an honor and a humbling experience, and it was truly inspiring to be in the presence of such distinguished leaders. One of the most meaningful aspects of the visit was seeing the interaction between the justices, local leaders, and especially the students who attended the oral arguments and reception. Opportunities like this help everyday citizens better understand the important work of the Court and witness firsthand the impact of our judicial system. The justices were gracious, engaging, and wonderful throughout the visit. This is a moment our community will remember for years to come.”
