Asa Hutchinson, in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Arkansas v. Randall Thomas McArty
2020 Ark. 190
| Ark. | 2020Background
- Randall McArty, convicted in 1993 of first-degree murder and serving life without parole for an offense committed when he was 25, sued state officials challenging the Fair Sentencing of Minors Act of 2017 (FSMA).
- McArty alleged the FSMA violated equal protection, due process, the Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment), and the ADA by treating persons adjudicated as minors differently from adults with intellectual disabilities regarding parole eligibility.
- His amended complaint named Governor Asa Hutchinson (official capacity) and other officials, requested declaratory and injunctive relief (immediate parole eligibility consideration), and sought attorney’s fees.
- Hutchinson moved to dismiss, arguing McArty lacked standing, failed to plead he is intellectually disabled, and was barred by sovereign and legislative immunity; the circuit court denied dismissal as to Hutchinson in his official capacity.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court granted interlocutory review and reversed, holding McArty’s complaint failed to plead sufficient facts to overcome sovereign immunity as to the governor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sovereign immunity bars suit against Governor in his official capacity | McArty sought declaratory/injunctive relief asserting the FSMA is unconstitutional as applied to him | Hutchinson argued the suit is against the State and barred by sovereign immunity; governor did not waive immunity by signing the law | Reversed: sovereign immunity bars the complaint as pleaded against the governor because signing legislation is not an illegal act that waives immunity |
| Whether McArty pleaded sufficient facts to invoke the illegal-act/ultra vires exception to sovereign immunity | McArty alleged unconstitutional and discriminatory application of the FSMA to him | Hutchinson contended allegations were conclusory and did not allege an illegal or ministerial refusal by the governor | Held: complaint lacked the required fact-pleading to show the governor acted illegally or ultra vires; conclusory assertions insufficient |
| Whether declaratory/injunctive relief avoids sovereign immunity when only such relief is sought | McArty argued declaratory/injunctive relief (not money damages) avoids sovereign immunity | Hutchinson maintained the suit still sought relief that would control state action and is barred absent a valid illegal-act allegation | Court did not reach this as a controlling basis; dismissed on pleading deficiency under sovereign-immunity doctrine |
Key Cases Cited
- Milligan v. Singer, 2019 Ark. 177, 574 S.W.3d 653 (Ark. 2019) (governor’s signature on legislation does not waive sovereign immunity)
- Harris v. Hutchinson, 2020 Ark. 3, 591 S.W.3d 778 (Ark. 2020) (reiterating that governor’s signature does not waive sovereign immunity)
- Williams v. McCoy, 2018 Ark. 17, 535 S.W.3d 266 (Ark. 2018) (illegal-act exception to sovereign immunity requires compliance with fact-pleading rules)
- Martin v. Haas, 2018 Ark. 283, 556 S.W.3d 509 (Ark. 2018) (suits seeking declaratory and injunctive relief can fall outside sovereign immunity when alleging unconstitutional acts)
- Ark. Oil & Gas Comm’n v. Hurd, 2018 Ark. 397, 564 S.W.3d 248 (Ark. 2018) (scope of sovereign-immunity immunity explained)
- Ark. State Med. Bd. v. Byers, 2017 Ark. 213, 521 S.W.3d 459 (Ark. 2017) (illegal-act and ministerial-act exceptions to sovereign immunity discussed)