ASA HUTCHINSON, IN His OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF ARKANSAS AND DR. CHARISSE CHILDERS, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DIVISION OF WORKFORCE SERVICES v. LOGAN ARMSTRONG EMILY BALL RONALD BATES CYNTHIA EYIUCHE And KURT JOHNSEN, 2022 Ark. 50

Background

In 2020 Congress created CARES Act pandemic-unemployment programs (PUA, FPUC, PEUC) funded federally; Arkansas entered an agreement with U.S. DOL to administer them.
Governor Hutchinson directed DWS to terminate Arkansas’ participation; DWS notified DOL on May 19, 2021, with an effective termination date of June 26, 2021.
Five Arkansans who had been receiving CARES Act benefits sued, claiming Ark. Code § 11-10-312(a) required the State to remain in such federal unemployment programs; they sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
The trial court granted a preliminary injunction ordering the State to reengage the programs if the federal government would allow it, finding a likelihood of success and irreparable harm.
While the appeal was pending, the General Assembly enacted Act 1 (First Extraordinary Session, 2021), amending § 11-10-312 from “shall” to “may,” adding that the director is not required to participate in CARES-type voluntary programs, and making the act retroactive to May 19, 2021.
The Arkansas Supreme Court stayed the injunction, considered mootness and other defenses on interlocutory appeal, and ultimately reversed and remanded with instructions to enter an order that the trial court’s grounds for the injunction have become moot.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness because programs expired Sept. 6, 2021	Armstrong: Case not moot; State could rescind termination and obtain retroactive federal payments	Hutchinson: Programs expired so relief impossible; appeal moot	Court: Could not decide mootness from expiration on record—availability of retroactive benefits is a factual question; did not rest decision on expiration
Mootness because Act 1 amended § 11-10-312 (retroactive)	Armstrong: Act 1 unconstitutional and can't be applied retroactively to bar relief	Hutchinson: Act 1 retroactively validates the termination, rendering suit moot	Court: Act 1 changed the statutory basis for the injunction; grounds relied on by trial court are moot; Court did not decide Act 1's constitutionality
Sovereign-immunity defense	Armstrong: Injunctive/declaratory relief permitted where officials acted ultra vires; immunity inapplicable	Hutchinson: Sovereign immunity bars suit against officials in their official capacities	Court: Declined to reach sovereign-immunity question because underlying statutory dispute is moot; noted precedent allowing injunction/declaratory claims against alleged ultra vires acts
Preliminary-injunction appropriateness	Armstrong: Irreparable harm and likelihood of success on merits under pre-Amendment statute	Hutchinson: Trial court exceeded discretion; injunction based on statute that no longer applies	Court: Did not decide merits; held trial court’s statutory-based grounds are moot and reversed injunction on that basis

Key Cases Cited

Baptist Health v. Murphy, 365 Ark. 115, 226 S.W.3d 800 (Ark. 2006) (standard and review for preliminary injunctions)
Allison v. Lee County Election Comm’n, 359 Ark. 388, 198 S.W.3d 113 (Ark. 2004) (repeal/amendment can render appeal moot)
Warren Wholesale Co. v. McLane Co., 374 Ark. 171, 286 S.W.3d 709 (Ark. 2008) (repeal of challenged regulation renders appeal moot; remand to state mootness)
Arkansas Dep’t of Hum. Servs. v. Ledgerwood, 2019 Ark. 100, 571 S.W.3d 1 (Ark. 2019) (court will not decide moot issues or issue advisory opinions)
Morgan v. Sparks, 258 Ark. 273, 523 S.W.2d 926 (Ark. 1975) (remand instruction where grounds for injunction become moot)
Harris v. Hutchinson, 2020 Ark. 3, 591 S.W.3d 778 (Ark. 2020) (sovereign immunity generally does not bar injunctive/declaratory claims alleging ultra vires acts)
TEMCO Constr., LLC v. Gann, 2013 Ark. 202, 427 S.W.3d 651 (Ark. 2013) (appellate courts should not reach issues lacking lower-court rulings)