City of Jacksonville v. Smith
540 S.W.3d 661
Ark.2018Background
- Plaintiff Smith, a Jacksonville citizen/taxpayer, sought a declaratory judgment and illegal-exaction relief challenging the city's police chief, Herweg, as ineligible to hold office under Ark. Const. art. 5, § 9.
- Herweg was appointed police chief by the mayor and had taken an oath and posted a bond; he previously pleaded guilty in Texas (2002) to a misdemeanor false-report offense.
- The circuit court granted Smith a preliminary injunction removing Herweg from performing duties pending resolution, finding likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.
- The City appealed, arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (failure to exhaust administrative remedies), non-justiciability, and that art. 5 § 9 does not apply to an appointed municipal police chief or to Herweg’s 2002 misdemeanor.
- The majority affirmed the preliminary injunction; Justice Hart dissented, arguing art. 5 § 9 should not reach municipal department heads and that the majority misapplied constitutional construction principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction / standing | Smith is a citizen/taxpayer with standing to sue for illegal exaction on behalf of citizens. | City contends Smith failed to exhaust administrative remedies, so court lacked jurisdiction. | Smith has standing; the claim is a public-funds illegal-exaction and is justiciable. |
| Justiciability / declaratory relief | Smith may seek declaratory relief where rights under statute/constitution are affected. | City contends Declaratory Judgment Act requires a properly justiciable question not presented here. | Court found a justiciable controversy and that preliminary injunctive relief may be granted absent full adjudication. |
| Applicability of art. 5, § 9 to appointed municipal police chief | Art. 5 § 9 applies to "any office of trust or profit," encompassing police chief. | City argues "office of trust or profit" targets statewide constitutional officers, not municipal department heads. | Court interpreted "any" broadly; held police chief is an "office of trust" within art. 5 § 9. |
| Whether Herweg's 2002 conviction is an "infamous crime" | Smith: conviction for giving false report is a deceit/dishonesty crime that qualifies as "infamous." | City: the conviction was a misdemeanor long ago and not the kind contemplated (e.g., election-related). | Court held the false-report conviction involves deceit and is an "infamous crime" disqualifying Herweg. |
| Irreparable harm for preliminary injunction | Allowing Herweg to serve would cause irreparable harm (unlawful official acts; taxpayers may have to repay funds). | City argued injunction was unnecessary and premature. | Court found irreparable harm (improper exercise of police-chief duties; potential illegal exaction) and affirmed the injunction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Ledgerwood, 530 S.W.3d 336 (Ark. 2017) (standard for preliminary injunction: likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
- Baptist Health v. Murphy, 226 S.W.3d 800 (Ark. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion review of preliminary injunctions)
- Oldner v. State, 206 S.W.3d 818 (Ark. 2005) (interpretation of "infamous crime" in art. 5 § 9)
- Edwards v. Campbell, 370 S.W.3d 250 (Ark. 2010) (theft by a public official held an "infamous crime")
- Allen v. State, 939 S.W.2d 270 (Ark. 1997) (public office as public trust and duties of office)
- Lucas v. Futrall, 106 S.W. 667 (Ark. 1907) (factors distinguishing public office from public employment)