592 S.W.3d 670
Ark.2020Background:
- On April 29, 2015, a DHS investigator entered Shiloh Christian School (a private school) to interview the Harrises’ three minor children during a child-maltreatment investigation.
- Entry occurred pursuant to a court-issued "order of investigation" directing that the school "allow entrance;" the petition requesting the order did not identify the private school and left the location blank.
- Justin and Marsha Harris sued DHS under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act (ACRA), alleging DHS exceeded the scope of the order, violated state law and the U.S. Constitution (including the Fourth Amendment), and sought monetary damages (no injunctive or declaratory relief).
- DHS moved to dismiss, asserting sovereign immunity and other defenses; the Washington County Circuit Court denied the motion to dismiss.
- DHS filed an interlocutory appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court challenging the denial of dismissal on sovereign-immunity grounds.
- The Supreme Court reversed and dismissed, holding sovereign immunity bars the Harrises’ monetary-damages claims and that the exceptions asserted did not permit damages against the state.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sovereign immunity bars monetary damages against a state agency for allegedly illegal/ultra vires or unconstitutional acts | Harrises: illegal-act/ultra vires exception permits suit for damages | DHS: sovereign immunity bars money damages; illegal-act exception limited to injunctive relief | Held: Sovereign immunity bars monetary damages; illegal-act exception does not authorize damages |
| Whether DHS waived sovereign immunity by filing a motion to dismiss (moving-party exception) | Harrises: DHS waived immunity by moving in court | DHS: filing a motion to dismiss is defensive, not a specific affirmative request for relief | Held: No waiver; moving-party exception requires a specific affirmative request for relief |
| Whether ACRA damages claim can proceed against a state agency | Harrises: ACRA allows damages for constitutional/statutory violations | DHS: ACRA damages are barred by sovereign immunity absent a valid waiver | Held: ACRA monetary claim against DHS dismissed as barred by sovereign immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Ark. Game & Fish Comm’n v. Heslep, 577 S.W.3d 1 (Ark. 2019) (standards for reviewing sovereign-immunity rulings)
- Milligan v. Singer, 574 S.W.3d 653 (Ark. 2019) (question of immunity reviewed de novo)
- Ark. Oil & Gas Comm’n v. Hurd, 564 S.W.3d 248 (Ark. 2018) (scope of sovereign-immunity bar explained)
- Ark. State Med. Bd. v. Byers, 521 S.W.3d 459 (Ark. 2017) (exceptions to immunity for illegal acts and ministerial refusals discussed)
- Ark. Dep’t of Cmty. Corr. v. City of Pine Bluff, 425 S.W.3d 731 (Ark. 2013) (sovereign immunity extends to state agencies)
- Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ark. v. Andrews, 535 S.W.3d 616 (Ark. 2018) (Arkansas Constitution limits legislative waivers of sovereign immunity)
- Fireman’s Ins. Co. v. Ark. State Claims Comm’n, 784 S.W.2d 771 (Ark. 1990) (moving-party exception explained)
- LandsnPulaski, LLC v. Ark. Dep’t of Corr., 269 S.W.3d 793 (Ark. 2007) (moving-party waiver requires a specific affirmative request)
- Pitcock v. State, 121 S.W. 742 (Ark. 1909) (illegal/ultra vires suits against officers historically limited to injunctive relief)