Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

In this interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court reversed and dismissed in part and dismissed in part this appeal from the judgment of the circuit court in a dispute centering on the Attorney General's spending on television commercials and legal filings in out-of-state federal litigation, holding that dismissal was warranted.In this lawsuit, Plaintiffs alleged that Attorney General Leslie Rutledge exceeded her authority and should be enjoined from continuing to act in excess of her authority and that she had spent funds in excess of her authority in an illegal exaction. The Attorney General asserted various immunity defenses, which the circuit court denied. The Supreme Court reversed and dismissed in part and dismissed in part, holding (1) as to the first claim for relief, the Attorney General had sovereign immunity and could not be enjoined; and (2) as to the second allegation, Rutledge as an individual was entitled to statutory immunity. View "Rutledge v. Remmel" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission denying Appellant's claim for additional medical benefits, holding that the Commission erred in determining that Appellant's claim for additional medical benefits was barred by the statute of limitations.In 2015, Appellant was injured while working for Liberty Trailer and sustained a compensable right-shoulder injury. In 2019, Appellant requested additional benefits. An administrative law judge found that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The Commission affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, under a plain reading of Ark. Code Ann. 11-9-702(b)(1), Appellant's claim for additional medical benefits was timely. View "Wynne v. Liberty Trailer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Appellants' motion for an emergency injunction that sought the removal of three members of the Eureka Springs City Advertising and Promotion Commission (CAPC), holding that there was no error.On appeal, Appellants argued (1) Carol Wright's appointment to the CAPC violated Ark. Const. art. 19, 3, and (2) the appointments of Melissa Green and Harry Meyer to the CAPC violated Ark. Code Ann. 14-4-107(a)(2). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court correctly concluded that Wright's CAPC appointment was not constitutionally prohibited; and (2) the circuit court did not err when it determined that Green and Meyer were qualified to serve as CAPC commissioners despite being sitting council members at the time of their appointments. View "Johnson v. Wright" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court granting a preliminary injunction in favor of Plaintiffs, holding that the grounds on which the trial court relied in entering the preliminary injunction had become moot.Plaintiffs were five Arkansas residents who had been receiving pandemic-related unemployment benefits through Pandemic Unemployment Assistance, Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation, and Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation prior to the State's termination of its participation in these programs. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendants - Governor Asa Hutchison and Arkansas Division of Workforce Services Director Charisse Childers - lacked the authority under Ark. Code Ann. 11-10-312 to terminate the State's participation in the programs. The trial court granted Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction ordering Defendants to reengage in the terminated programs. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the grounds for the preliminary injunction had been rendered moot by the General Assembly's passage of Act 1 of the First Extraordinary Session of 2021. View "Hutchinson v. Armstrong" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the order of the circuit court denying the State's motion to dismiss and granting a preliminary injunction in favor of Plaintiff, holding that the preliminary injunction was granted erroneously.Plaintiff, a hearing-instrument dispenser whose license was not renewed, brought this action against the Arkansas Department of Health, the Secretary of Health, and Arkansas Board of Hearing Instrument Dispensers, and the Executive Director of the Board of Hearing Instrument Dispensers (collectively, the State), arguing that the Board's refusal to provide him a proper renewal notice and a hearing violated his due process and equal protection rights and was an arbitrary and capricious abuse of the Board's power. The circuit court granted Plaintiff's request for a temporary injunction and declaratory relief. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) Plaintiff adequately pleaded a due process claim; (2) Plaintiff's equal protection claim was barred by sovereign immunity; and (3) because the preliminary injunction order contained no findings on irreparable harm or likelihood of success on the merits, the case must be remanded for findings in accordance with Ark. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1). View "Arkansas Department of Health v. Solomon" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court granting a motion to dismiss filed by Appellees - Arkansas Parole Board, John Felts, and Andy Shock - in Appellant's action filed pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Ark. Code Ann. 25-15-201 through 25-15-220, holding that Appellant failed to state a sufficient basis for judicial review under the APA.Appellant pleaded guilty to the sexual abuse of a fifteen-year-old and was sentenced to thirty years' imprisonment. Years later, the parole board denied Appellant parole for a two-year period of time. Appellant filed a petition for judicial review from the denial of his parole under the APA, alleging that Appellees failed to adhere to parole statutes and the APA, in violation of his due process rights. The circuit court dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed Appellant's complaint for failing to state a claim for relief pursuant to the APA. View "Wood v. Arkansas Parole Board" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court denying Bayer Cropscience, LP's motion to intervene in a lawsuit challenging a rule adopted by the Arkansas State Plant Board, holding that the circuit court erred in denying Bayer's motion to intervene as a matter of right.Plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the Plant Board violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by adopting the 2021 Dicamba Rule. Bayer, which manufactures and sells the herbicide Dicamba, moved to intervene in the action. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Bayer was entitled to intervene as a matter of right because it satisfied all of the requirements set forth in Ark. R. Civ. P. 24. View "Bayer Cropscience, LP v. Hooks" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court that granted Appellant's mandamus petition alleging that the Arkansas Department of Correction had miscalculated his parole eligibility, holding that Appellant was entitled to a parole-eligibility calculation for his enhanced sentence.At issue was the calculation of Defendant's parole eligibility in connection with his sentence of 180 months' imprisonment for a use of a firearm in the commission of a felony offense. Relying on the amended version of Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-120(e), the circuit court determined that the offense of aggravated robbery and the enhancement based on the use of a firearm were separate for purposes of determining parole eligibility. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant was entitled to a parole-eligibility calculation for the enhanced sentence pursuant to the statutes in effect when he committed aggravated robbery. View "Rogers v. Arkansas Department of Correction" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court ordering disclosure of the documents requested by Russell R. Racop under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Ark. Code Ann. 25-19-101 et seq., holding that the trial court erred in finding that the requested documents were not exempt from FOIA under Ark. Code Ann. 25-19-105(b)(10).Racop sent an email request for public records to the Arkansas State Police and its director and the attorney for the Arkansas Department of Public Safety/Arkansas State Police (collectively, ASP), which ASP denied. Racop then brought this action seeking an order requiring disclosure under FOIA. The trial court granted the request. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Racop's request was exempt from disclosure under section 25-19-105(b)(10)(a). View "Arkansas State Police v. Recop" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed the circuit court's dismissal of Plaintiff's lawsuit against the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration, Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control Division, Arkansas Medical Marijuana Commission (collectively, State Defendants) and Nature's Herbs and Wellness of Arkansas, LLC, holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction.Plaintiff brought this suit alleging violations of the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Commission's administrative rules, the Administrative Procedure Act, and Plaintiff's equal protection and due process rights. The circuit court concluded that Plaintiff lacked standing to bring its lawsuit and dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court dismissed Plaintiff's appeal, holding that because the record was not filed within ninety days from the filing of the first notice of appeal this Court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. View "Medicanna, LLC v. Arkansas Department of Finance & Administration" on Justia Law