The state of Iowa has a long history of pioneering civil rights advancements. 

The very first decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, In the Matter of Ralph, maintained “equal protection to men of all colors and conditions” at a time when Black Americans were widely denied legal recognition of their rights and the nation was deeply divided over the question of slavery (Iowa State Bar Association). 

Ralph Montgomery, a slave living in Missouri, had received written permission from his owner to leave his slave state and travel to Iowa, a free state, where lead mines in Dubuque held the promise of opportunity and potential wealth. In return for his freedom, Ralph agreed to pay his owner $550 plus interest (Iowa State Bar Association).

For four years, Ralph worked in the lead mines but remained unable to pay anything toward the price of his freedom, leaving his debt unresolved and his freedom uncertain (PBS). 

That uncertainty turned into a cruel reality when two Virginia bounty hunters in Dubuque presented Ralph’s slave owner with an offer to return Ralph for a fee of $100. The offer was accepted, and Ralph was found, handcuffed, loaded in a wagon, and headed for a steamship back to Missouri, where the chains of slavery would tighten once more (Iowa Judicial Branch).

As Ralph was being taken, a local eyewitness, Alexander Butterworth, recognized the brutal injustice unfolding before him and refused to stand idly by. Instead, he reported the abduction to Iowa Territorial Supreme Court Associate Justice Thomas Wilson, who promptly ordered a sheriff to return Ralph to Dubuque, asserting Ralph’s right to a legal hearing under habeas corpus (Iowa Judicial Branch). 

On Independence Day of 1839, 18 years before the U.S. Supreme Court would maintain the rights of the slave holder in the infamous Dred Scott case and 26 years before slavery would be federally abolished with the 13th Amendment, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that “the master, who subsequently…permits his slave to become a resident [of Iowa], cannot afterwards exercise any act of ownership over him within this territory. The law does not take away his property in express terms but declares it no longer to be property at all” (Iowa State Bar Association). While the court also acknowledged Ralph’s obligation to repay his initial debt, it ultimately held that “non-payment could not reduce a man to slavery in [Iowa]” (Iowa Judicial Branch).

Iowa’s ruling in In the Matter of Ralph was a landmark moment, cementing the state’s role as a leader in civil rights. The decision demonstrated Iowa’s willingness to challenge the status quo, placing individual freedom above economic or political pressures.

Yet, nearly two centuries later, Iowa finds itself at the forefront of a very different kind of legal precedent—one that restricts rights rather than expands them. On February 28, 2025, Iowa became the first state to remove gender identity as a protected class under the Iowa Civil Rights Act, stripping transgender individuals of legal protections “from discrimination in employment, housing, education, [and] public accommodations” (Des Moines Register). The same courts that once safeguarded personal liberty against oppression now bear witness to its retraction.

Supporters of the law argue that it restores fairness by ensuring that legal protections apply based on biological sex at birth, rather than gender identity. They claim that the change strengthens recent legislation restricting transgender rights—including bans on gender-affirming medical care for minors, school bathroom policies, and transgender participation in women’s sports—by removing legal ambiguities that could undermine these measures in court. Governor Kim Reynolds defended the law, stating that the Iowa Civil Rights Act had previously “blurred the biological line between the sexes,” putting these policies at risk (Associated Press). 

Opponents, however, see this as a direct reversal of the principles Iowa once championed. They argue that, like Ralph Montgomery’s case, the government is determining who is and isn’t entitled to fundamental rights based on identity, whether race in 1839 or gender identity in 2025. “History will not look kindly on this moment,” says executive director of One Iowa Max Mowitz (Des Moines Register).

The ruling in In the Matter of Ralph established that a person who had lived in Iowa as a free individual could not be forcibly returned to a system that denied their personhood. Now, critics of Iowa’s latest law question whether the state is turning its back on those seeking recognition under the law. If Iowa was once a place where freedom was affirmed, what does it mean for the state’s legacy when it is now a place where rights are rescinded?