Hutcheson v. City of Cave Springs, Arkansas, 5:17-cv-05026

Cave Springs City Council passed Ordinance 2015-04 ("Duties Ordinance") stripping many duties from the City Treasurer; the then-treasurer resigned and the office remained vacant for months.
In October 2015 the Council passed Ordinance 2015-08 ("Recorder-Treasurer Ordinance") merging the Recorder and Treasurer offices; the ordinance stated the current Recorder raised no objection.
Kimberly Hutcheson was the City Recorder at the time, became Recorder-Treasurer after the merger, and was later elected to a four-year term in 2016.
Hutcheson alleges that after a personnel dispute Mayor Travis Lee retaliated against her through actions including lockouts, limited software access, directing harassment, vetoing clarifying legislation, and prompting criminal inquiry.
Hutcheson sued under the Constitution’s Bill of Attainder Clause, claiming the two ordinances operated to strip her duties as punishment; defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
The court found the complaint failed to plead that the ordinances were legislative punishment of Hutcheson, concluding the allegedly punitive acts were executive, not legislative, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Duties and Recorder‑Treasurer ordinances qualify as a bill of attainder (i.e., legislative punishment)	Hutcheson: ordinances stripped duties and thus imposed punishment/disqualification from office on her	Defendants: ordinances were not punitive toward Hutcheson	Held: Complaint fails to plead punitive legislative purpose as to Hutcheson; ordinances not plausibly alleged to be bills of attainder
Whether the complained‑of harms are legislative acts subject to bill‑of‑attainder analysis	Hutcheson: relies on ordinances and their effects as the legislative basis for injury	Defendants: alleged harms were executive actions by Mayor Lee, not legislative enactments	Held: Court concluded the punitive acts alleged were executive, while the legislative acts (the ordinances) were not shown to be punitive; thus bill‑of‑attainder claim fails

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility and Twombly standard)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (notice pleading principle under Rule 8)
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) (definition and elements of a bill of attainder)
Crain v. City of Mountain Home, Ark., 611 F.2d 726 (8th Cir. 1979) (disqualification from office can be punishment under bill of attainder)
United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965) (bill of attainder and punishment principles)
Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977) (discussion of legislative punishment)
Ashley County, Arkansas v. Pfizer, Inc., 552 F.3d 659 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard for accepting factual allegations at motion to dismiss)