639 S.W.3d 319
Ark.2022Background:
- Plaintiffs (League of Women Voters of Arkansas and others) sued Secretary of State John Thurston and members of the Arkansas State Board of Election Commissioners challenging four 93rd-General-Assembly statutes: Act 736 (absentee application signature-match requirement), Act 973 (in-person absentee return deadline), Act 249 (prohibition on affidavit-fail-safe for voter ID), and Act 728 (restrictions on nonpartisan voter support near polling places).
- Plaintiffs alleged these statutes violate multiple provisions of the Arkansas Constitution (Free and Fair Elections, Equal Protection, Voter Qualification, Free Speech and Assembly, and Amendment 51 §19) and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
- Thurston moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting sovereign immunity among other defenses; the circuit court denied the motion, finding plaintiffs’ amended complaint sufficiently alleged unconstitutional state action and that factual issues on the applicable scrutiny standard were not ripe for disposition.
- Thurston filed an expedited interlocutory appeal under Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 2(a)(10), which permits appeal only from orders denying dismissal based on sovereign immunity.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of Thurston’s sovereign-immunity defense, relying principally on Martin v. Haas and related precedent; the Court did not decide the constitutional merits of the challenged statutes.
- Separate opinions: Justice Rhonda K. Wood (concurring) argued for original-meaning interpretation permitting suits for injunctive/declaratory relief against illegal state action; Justice Shawn A. Womack (dissenting) argued article 5 § 20’s “never” bars such suits and sovereign immunity is jurisdictional and absolute.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sovereign immunity bars plaintiffs’ suit for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging state statutes as unconstitutional | Plaintiffs (League) argued Martin v. Haas controls: when a complaint alleges statutes violate constitutional rights and seeks only equitable relief, sovereign immunity does not bar the suit | Thurston argued sovereign immunity under Ark. Const. art. 5 § 20 bars suit against the State and its officials in their official capacities; plaintiffs failed to plead facts sufficient to overcome immunity | Court held sovereign immunity does not bar the suit here; affirmed denial of motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity (relied on Haas and related precedent); did not reach merits of statutes |
| Whether plaintiffs pleaded sufficient facts to invoke strict-scrutiny review / state that relief could be granted at pleading stage | Plaintiffs alleged concrete burdens on voting, speech, and assembly and imminent harm, supporting heightened scrutiny and equitable relief | Thurston contended pleadings were conclusory and insufficient to overcome immunity and dismissal | Court declined to resolve the substantive standard of review on appeal; noted the amended complaint contained sufficient factual allegations to survive dismissal at this stage but left merits for later proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Haas, 556 S.W.3d 509 (Ark. 2018) (sovereign immunity inapplicable where plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief challenging statute as unconstitutional)
- Board of Trustees v. Andrews, 535 S.W.3d 616 (Ark. 2018) (interpreting article 5 § 20 re: waiver of State monetary liability)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (federal doctrine allowing suits for prospective injunctive relief against state officials acting unconstitutionally)
- Shellnut v. Arkansas State Game & Fish Commission, 258 S.W.2d 570 (Ark. 1953) (equity may enjoin ultra vires acts of public officers/boards)
- Hickenbottom v. McCain, 181 S.W.2d 226 (Ark. 1944) (sovereign immunity did not bar injunction challenging Employment Security Division where relief imposed no obligation on the State)