On the Board of Directors for Loaves and Fishes Ministry 15th Place Homeless Day Service Shelter   

Stewart's campaign website states, "Alabamians know they can count on Supreme Court Justice Sarah Stewart to strictly construe the law, never legislate from the bench, and enforce the law justly. Just as she has for the last 18 years, Justice Stewart will take her responsibility as a conservative jurist very seriously."

"It is important for a justice to have strongly developed judicial values. My record reflects my conservative approach to dispensing justice impartially, ensuring Alabama’s body of jurisprudence evolves in strict accordance with conservative principles. My work as a Circuit Judge and a Justice speaks for itself - I have and will never legislate from the bench and I have and will always stand for Alabamians’ constitutional rights. I will fiercely safeguard our freedoms enshrined in the Constitution  - from the right to praise God freely to the power of state government. Five of the original ten amendments to the US Constitution are about the justice system because the Founding Fathers looked to the judicial branch to protect these fundamental freedoms. The Alabama Supreme Court must stand as the final protective barrier to encroachment on the people of Alabama’s rights." 

Justice Stewart said, “Hearing as many cases as I have, with virtually every imaginable circumstance, has only served to deepen my conviction that a judge must be, above all other things, impartial. We must never view a case through the lens of our personal opinions, but through the lens of the law. As a judge, it’s not my job to make law, it’s my job to interpret it…to say what it means and how it applies to each case. For this reason, rulings must be timely, fair, and always grounded in the rule of law. As a conservative Judge, my mission is to apply the rule of law fairly and impartially. That is our highest duty."

“Being a conservative judge is not equal to being a social conservative.” 

Justice Stewart stated in a campaign video that she will, “Strengthen our courts, defend our Constitution and protect our families”  

Stewart said she ‘tries to adhere to the law and higher court precedent — even when she might not prefer the result,’ saying ‘sometimes as a judge, you have to sign off on an opinion you don’t personally agree with because that’s the law.’” Further stating, “Judges are referees, not policymakers,” Stewart continued.” 

Justice Stewart's stated, "My mission is to apply the rule of law fairly and impartially. That is our highest duty.” 

A TV ad during her 2018 campaign stated that Stewart will, “Protect our 2nd Amendment gun right”, “Defend the Constitution” and “Guard our national against evil doers”

Doldgencorp, LLC v. Gilliam (2023) Stewart dissented without separate opinion.

Holding: The court held that, "Gilliam's negligence claim fail[ed] as a matter of law" and "reverse[d] the trial court's judgment and render a judgment in favor of Dolgencorp." (4) The court found "Like in Albert, under the facts of this case, there is 'no duty and no causation; the facts indicate that the cause of the accident was the operation of the [out-of-control] vehicle.'" (3)

Background: Freeman lost control of her vehicle in the Northwood Shopping Center parking lot in Northport, crashing through the Dollar General store's storefront and injuring customer Gilliam. Gilliam sued Dolgencorp, the store's owner, alleging negligence for failing to install protective barriers that could have prevented the crash. Dolgencorp argued that, under the precedent set by Albert v. Hsu, it had no duty to foresee and protect against such an accident. The trial court denied Dolgencorp’s summary judgment motion and, later, its motion for judgment as a matter of law on the negligence claim, though it granted the motion on the wantonness claim. The jury ruled in favor of Gilliam. "Dolgencorp filed a renewed motion for a JML, which was denied by operation of law. This appeal followed.” (1)

Rule(s): "To prevail on her negligence claim, Gilliam was required to prove (1) that Dolgencorp owed her a duty of care, (2) that Dolgencorp breached that duty, (3) that she suffered a loss or injury, (4) and that Dolgencorp's breach was the actual and proximate cause of her loss or injury. Albert, 602 So.2d at 897." (2) “In determining whether a duty exists in a given situation, courts consider a number of factors, most importantly whether the injury was foreseeable by the defendant. Smitherman v. McCafferty, 622 So.2d 322, 324 (Ala. 1993).  DolgenCorp, LLC v. Gilliam, No. SC-2023-0008, 5 (Ala. Oct. 27, 2023)" (2)

Magers v. Alabama Women's Center Reproductive Alternatives (2020) Per curiam.  

Holding: The Court dismissed Magers' wrongful death claim because he did not properly comply with Rule 28. The Court found that "Magers's argument thus consist[ed] of one conclusory statement followed by a string citation." [3] The Court stated that, "[I]t is not the responsibility of this Court to construct arguments for a party or to fill in gaps from string citations offered in lieu of arguments. Rather, it is our duty to decide whether the arguments presented have merit." [4-5]

Background: After Baby Roe was aborted, Baby Roe's father, Magers, sought to be appointed as the personal representative of Baby Roe's estate in the Madison Probate Court. The Court granted his petition. Later Magers filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against the AWC in the Madison Circuit Court. The AWC's motion to dismiss the lawsuit was granted. Magers to appealed the decision.

Rule(s):  "Rule 28 requires the argument section of an appellant's initial brief to set out 'the contentions of the appellant/petitioner with respect to the issues presented, and the reasons therefor, with citations to the cases, statutes, other authorities, and parts of the record relied on.' Rule 28(a)(10), Ala. R. App. P." [2-3]

March 12, 2020 Order (2020) Signed Bryan's dissent.

Holding: The Court ordered "that the presiding judges are granted the authority to suspend jury trials completely or on a case by case basis for the next week, March 16 - 20."

Dissent: Bryan argued that judges should be ordered to cancel the jury trials, not simply given the discretion to. Bryan, "...dissent[ed] from this Court's decision not to order the presiding judge of each judicial circuit in the State to cancel jury trials for at least the next week, the week of March 16." (2) He argued that "[I]n light of the nationwide spread of COVID- 19 (Coronavirus), [that] this Court should take the extraordinary step of ordering the temporary suspension of jury trials until more comprehensive protective measures can be implemented, at which point a reassessment of the need for such suspension could be considered." (2) "Furthermore, [he] strongly urge[d] the presiding judges of each circuit to consider the welfare of the most vulnerable citizens of this State when determining whether to summon dozens of citizens to a confined space for several hours simply because they received a jury summons." (2) 

November 23, 2020 Order (2020) Signed clerk's rule.

Holding: The Court held that video testimony would be permitted where there is “good cause in compelling circumstances." (See Appendix A: Rule 43. Evidence).

Bolin's Dissent: Bolin argued against the amendment to Rule 43, Ala. R. Civ. P. He noted that the original mission of the COVID-19 Task Force was to recommend measures for a safe return to civil jury trials, specifically allowing remote testimony in cases where a witness tested positive for COVID. Bolin criticized the amendment for its broad application to "all trials," not just emergencies. He contended that this change, which allows remote testimony under "good cause in compelling circumstances," may conflict with the Alabama Constitution and existing statutes. Bolin highlighted potential impacts on areas such as testimony from incarcerated individuals, contempt of court distinctions, and the ore tenus rule. Specifically, Bolin argued that the new rule was unconstitutional because "open court" had been interpreted to exclude phone calls and forms of electronic communication. (See Bolin's Dissent). Bolin argued this would create ambiguities over whether individuals speaking over video calls would be said to have committed contempt in "open court." (See Bolin's Dissent).

Background: The amendment to Rule 43, Ala. R. Civ. P., states, in part, "For good cause in compelling circumstances and with appropriate safeguards, the court may permit testimony in open court by contemporaneous transmission from a different location."

Munza v. Ivey (2021) Concurred in Bolin's majority.

Holding(s) & Analysis: The court held "that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their complaint seeking injunctive relief regarding the July 15 proclamation adopting the amended health order that, among other things, requires masks or facial coverings to be worn in certain circumstances." [23] The Court found that "[t]he plaintiffs' allegations of an imminent threat of enforcement of the July 15 proclamation ... differ substantially from those in Parker." [19] The Court concluded that "[t]he plaintiffs ... failed to allege any credible risk of enforcement that would give rise to standing that would support a pre-enforcement action." [19] Further, "Babbitt also require[d] that a plaintiff allege that 'either (1) he was threatened with prosecution; (2) prosecution is likely; or (3) there is a credible threat of prosecution. American Civil Liberties Union v. The Florida Bar, 999 F.2d 1486, 1492 (11th Cir. 1993)." [19-20] The court found, "[t]he plaintiffs have alleged no facts that would satisfy [Babbitt's] requirements." [20]  The Court found that "[t]he plaintiffs' complaint does not contain a single allegation that any of the plaintiffs have been specifically threatened with enforcement of the fine and incarceration penalties in the July 15 proclamation. Instead, all the plaintiffs alleged was that the July 15 proclamation 'provided threat of fine and incarceration' and that the plaintiffs 'are directly affected by the Proclamation and Order, as they are located within the boundaries of the State of Alabama and, during times, interface with the public at distances of less than six feet.'" [20]

Background: The plaintiffs "challeng[ed] a proclamation issued by Governor Kay Ivey requiring the use of facial coverings in certain circumstances[.]"[13] The plaintiffs argued the "[s]aid Proclamation and Order [was] illegal." [15] The defendants argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the order. [13]

State v. City of Birmingham (2019) Signed Bryan's majority opinion.

Holding and Analysis: The Court held that the Birmingham "altered" the monument (due to the definition of a monument), and that municipalities had no free speech or due process rights because they are non-sovereign subdivisions of the state. "[T]he Supreme Court has firmly, and recently, rejected any notion that a subdivision of the state has any 'privileges or immunities under the federal constitution which it may invoke in opposition to the will of its creator.'" (27) Further the Court found, "[a]ny right to have the City's 'government speech" fall within the protections of § 4 of the Alabama Constitution must be specifically conferred by the legislature, and the legislature has not done so.'" (34) Looking at the plain meaning of the statute the Court found that "the City defendants, by violating § 41-9-232(a), are subject to the penalty provision of the Act." (41) "Accordingly, [the Court[ conclude[d] that, under the circumstances of this case, the City defendants were subject to a single $25,000 fine for their violation of the Act." (43)

Background: "In 1905, the Pelham Chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy dedicated the Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument ('monument') to Confederate soldiers who fought in the Civil War in Capitol Park, which has since been renamed to Charles Linn Park ('Linn Park')." (2) "On August 15, 2017, then-Mayor William Bell ordered City employees to erect a freestanding plywood screen in the area near and around the base of the monument[.]" (3) The Court asked "whether the City defendants' placement of the plywood screen around the base of the monument 'altered' or 'otherwise disturbed' the monument" thus violating "§ 41-9-232(a), Ala. Code 1975, a part of the Act

Rule(s): § 41-9-232(a), Ala. Code 1975, a part of the Act, that provides: 'No ... monument which is located on public property and has been so situated for 40 or more years may be relocated, removed, altered, renamed, or otherwise disturbed.'" (4) The Court looks to the plain meaning when interpreting legislation.

Justice Stewart's campaign website states that she, "strictly construed the law, never legislated from the bench, and acted with the highest integrity. 'I believe that justice means people must be treated equally in the courts of law, within a moral framework, and wrong-doers must be punished appropriately.' Justice Stewart knows that the judicial branch’s only source of strength is the trust of the people.  She believes that when people do not trust the court system, justice cannot happen in Alabama."