Ark. State Plant Bd. v. McCarty
576 S.W.3d 473
Ark.2019Background
- Arkansas State Plant Board (Board) adopted an April 16 (effectively April 15) cutoff for in‑crop dicamba use for 2018 after complaints about off‑target dicamba damage; farmers challenged the rule and other Board actions in Pulaski County Circuit Court.
- The Farmers sought declaratory and injunctive relief and alleged: unconstitutional delegation in Arkansas Code § 2‑16‑206 (Board appointments), procedural violations in Board meetings/communications, arbitrary denial of their petition for rulemaking, and sought to continue using dicamba.
- The circuit court dismissed the Farmers’ amended complaint with prejudice, relying on sovereign immunity (citing Andrews), but also declared the Board’s April 2018 cutoff rule "void ab initio" as to the named Farmers.
- While the appeal was pending, the Board repealed the April cutoff and adopted a new rule allowing in‑crop dicamba through May 25, 2019, eliminating the practical controversy over the April cutoff.
- The Supreme Court dismissed the Board’s direct appeal of the voiding of the April cutoff as moot, reversed the dismissal of the Farmers’ constitutional challenge to § 2‑16‑206, and remanded for further proceedings; a justice concurred in part and dissented in part on sovereign‑immunity scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appeal of circuit court’s order voiding the April 2018 dicamba cutoff remains justiciable | McCarty et al.: the circuit court’s declaration protects them from enforcement; relief remains live | Board: repeal of the April cutoff rule while appeal pending moots the controversy | Dismissed as moot — repeal rendered the direct appeal nonjusticiable |
| Whether sovereign immunity bars Farmers’ suit seeking declaratory/injunctive relief for allegedly unconstitutional Board action | Farmers: seeking only declaratory/injunctive relief for unconstitutional/ultra vires acts — sovereign immunity inapplicable | Board: Andrews bars waiver-based suits; sovereign immunity defeats the complaint | Court: sovereign immunity does not bar suit for declaratory/injunctive relief alleging unconstitutional appointment process; reversed dismissal on that claim |
| Whether Farmers’ administrative claims challenging denial of petition for rulemaking and related procedural communications remain live | Farmers: alleged procedural irregularities and raised administrative‑law claims | Board: those claims mooted by subsequent rule repeal; sovereign immunity defense | Those administrative and procedural claims held moot and dismissed as such |
| Whether allegation that § 2‑16‑206 unconstitutionally delegates appointment power to private industry is barred by sovereign immunity | Farmers: statute violates separation of powers and appointment rules; seek injunctive/declaratory relief | Board: asserted sovereign immunity (relying on Andrews) | Court: claim is not barred by sovereign immunity; circuit court’s dismissal reversed and case remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ark. v. Andrews, 535 S.W.3d 616 (Ark. 2018) (state sovereign‑immunity decision relied on by parties)
- Martin v. Haas, 556 S.W.3d 509 (Ark. 2018) (sovereign immunity does not bar suits seeking declaratory/injunctive relief for alleged unconstitutional acts)
- Cammack v. Chalmers, 680 S.W.2d 689 (Ark. 1984) (recognizing exception to sovereign immunity for illegal, unconstitutional, or ultra vires acts)
- Hodges v. Lamora, 989 S.W.2d 530 (Ark. 1999) (standard for reviewing a dismissal for failure to state a claim)