2021 Ark. 136
Ark.2021Background
- In 2017 Arkansas enacted the Arkansas Educational Support and Accountability Act (AESAA) establishing Level 1–5 supports and requiring the State Board to promulgate exit-criteria rules for Level 5 districts.
- The State Board previously classified several Little Rock School District (LRSD) schools as academically distressed, dissolved the LRSD board, assumed authority, and later reconstituted a new LRSD board after five years of Level 5 status.
- When reconstituting LRSD, the State Board imposed three limitations on the new local board (superintendent changes, personnel/collective-bargaining selection, and litigation restrictions).
- LRSD parents sued the Arkansas Department of Education, the Commissioner, and individual State Board members, asserting: (1) APA violation for failure to promulgate LRSD-specific exit criteria; (2) State Board acted ultra vires/illegally by imposing limitations; and (3) §§ 6-15-2916 and 6-15-2917 unconstitutionally delegate legislative power.
- The circuit court denied the State Board’s motion to dismiss (sovereign immunity and APA jurisdiction), and the State Board appealed; the Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed and dismissed in part, and remanded in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §25-15-214 (APA rulemaking review) gives circuit court jurisdiction to challenge failure to promulgate LRSD-specific exit criteria | McCoy: The State Board failed to promulgate district-specific exit criteria as required, so APA review is available | State Board: §25-15-214 authorizes review only for rules of general applicability; district-specific criteria are not APA "rules" | Court: Dismissed APA claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction — district-specific criteria are not APA "rules" of general applicability |
| Whether plaintiffs pleaded an illegal/ultra vires exception to sovereign immunity for the State Board’s imposition of limitations on the reconstituted LRSD board | McCoy: The limitations exceeded statutory authority and were ultra vires, arbitrary, and injurious | State Board: AESAA grants broad authority over Level 5 districts; statute does not prohibit imposing limitations after reconstitution | Court: Sovereign immunity bars the ultra vires/illegal-acts claims as pleaded; reversed and dismissed those claims |
| Whether §§6-15-2916 and 6-15-2917 unconstitutionally delegate legislative authority and whether that claim overcomes sovereign immunity | McCoy: Statutes are vague and give unfettered discretion to State Board to set ‘‘guardrails’’ and exit criteria, constituting an unlawful delegation | State Board: Discretion is guided; statutes provide sufficient standards and do not constitute improper delegation; sovereign immunity bars suit | Court: Because plaintiffs pleaded a direct constitutional challenge and seek declaratory/injunctive relief, the claim survives sovereign-immunity dismissal; affirmed denial of dismissal and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Key v. Curry, 473 S.W.3d 1 (recognition of State Board authority and prior LRSD takeover)
- Board of Trs. of Univ. of Ark. v. Andrews, 535 S.W.3d 616 (sovereign-immunity principles regarding suits against the State)
- Ark. Dep’t of Fin. & Admin. v. Carpenter Farms Med. Grp., 601 S.W.3d 111 (standard of review on motion to dismiss and treating pleadings as true)
- Monsanto Co. v. Ark. State Plant Bd., 576 S.W.3d 8 (declaratory/injunctive suits challenging illegal or unconstitutional state action can overcome sovereign immunity)
- Ark. State Plant Bd. v. McCarty, 576 S.W.3d 473 (scope of sovereign-immunity exception for declaratory/injunctive relief alleging illegal/ultra vires acts)
- Ark. Game & Fish Comm’n v. Heslep, 577 S.W.3d 1 (similar treatment of sovereign-immunity exceptions)
- Fitzgiven v. Dorey, 429 S.W.3d 234 (statutory interpretation principles; courts will not read limits into statute absent language)