Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Fort Smith School District
2015 Ark. 81
Ark.2015Background
- Interlocutory appeal from Pulaski County Circuit Court’s denial of a motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity by DHS and its director Selig.
- DHS rule requires all licensed child-care centers to carry general-liability insurance, pursuant to Act 778 of 2009 and §20-78-227.
- Three school districts sued DHS, Selig (official capacity), and governor Beebe for declaratory and injunctive relief, and costs/attorneys’ fees.
- Districts alleged Act 778 conflicts with tort immunity for school districts under Ark. Code Ann. §21-9-301 and DHS supervision status of district child care.
- Circuit court denied both the motion to dismiss and the preliminary injunction; order stated “Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.”
- Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed and dismissed in part, and dismissed in part; addressed sovereign immunity and declaratory relief under §25-15-207, injunctive relief, damages immunity, and individual-capacity immunity for Selig.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sovereign immunity bars the declaratory-judgment action. | Districts rely on §25-15-207 waiver for rule validity. | DHS/Selig contend sovereign immunity blocks relief. | Declaratory relief allowed; immunity not a bar on validity challenges. |
| Whether injunctive relief against DHS and Selig is barred by sovereign immunity. | Injunction necessary to enforce declaratory judgment if rule invalid. | Immunity prevents state-officially sponsored relief. | Injunction permissible as enforcement mechanism after declaratory judgment. |
| Whether damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees against the State are barred by sovereign immunity. | School districts seek costs/fees as relief. | Sovereign immunity shields the State from such damages. | Damages/costs/fees barred; dismiss on this narrow claim. |
| Whether Selig can be sued in his individual capacity under 19-10-305(a). | Individual-capacity claims against Selig may lie. | Statutory immunity bars suits absent malice or outside scope. | Individual-capacity claims dismissed; no malice alleged. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ark. Dep't of Envtl. Quality v. Oil Producers of Ark., 2009 Ark. 297 (2009) (standard for reviewing motion-to-dismiss; fact-pleading required)
- Ark. Game & Fish Comm’n v. Eddings, 2011 Ark. 47 (2011) (sovereign immunity extends to state agencies)
- Ark. Lottery Comm’n v. Alpha Mktg., 2012 Ark. 23 (2012) (need express ruling on sovereign immunity for interlocutory appeal)
- Ark. Dep't of Cmty. Con. v. City of Pine Bluff, 2013 Ark. 36 (2013) (express or implied waivers of sovereign immunity via statute)
- Asset Acceptance, LLC v. Newby, 2014 Ark. 280 (2014) (sovereign-immunity basis requires explicit ruling for review)
- Hardin v. Bishop, 2013 Ark. 395 (2013) (review requires express sovereign-immunity ruling on appeal)
- Ark. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality v. Al-Madhoun, 374 Ark. 28 (2008) (malice exception to official-immunity for damages)