Mack v. Wilcox County Board of Education, 218 So. 3d 774

In 2012 an election for Wilcox County Board of Education District 3 resulted in Darryl Perryman winning; an election contest later removed him for lack of residency. The Board entered the contest and paid legal fees.
The State Board of Education sought the local Board’s permission to intervene; a Board vote on that request resulted in a tie. Three local members later asked the State Board to intervene without majority approval, and the State Board did intervene and sought relief from this Court.
Eli Mack (resident) sued the Wilcox County Board of Education (the Board) and Lester Turk (Board president in his official capacity) seeking (1) declaratory relief that the Board lacked authority to intervene, (2) an injunction restraining Turk and others from participating in certain legal actions involving Board members, and (3) return of funds the Board spent on legal fees.
Defendants moved to dismiss asserting sovereign immunity under Article I, § 14 of the Alabama Constitution and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the trial court denied the motion. Defendants petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel dismissal.
The Alabama Supreme Court granted the petition, reasoning the county Board (a State agency) is absolutely immune from suit under § 14; Turk was also immune because Mack did not plead conduct by Turk that fell within the injunction exception; and Mack lacked standing to seek recovery of already-expended public funds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the county Board is subject to suit under Art. I, § 14	Mack sought declaratory relief that the Board lacked authority to intervene	Board argued absolute sovereign immunity bars suit against it	Board is an arm of the State and absolutely immune; dismissal required
Whether an injunction against Turk (in official capacity) is permitted under § 14 exceptions	Mack sought to enjoin Turk from “participating” in certain legal actions involving Board members, alleging the intervention was without authority	Turk argued Mack failed to allege Turk acted fraudulently, in bad faith, beyond authority, or in a mistaken interpretation of law (the sixth exception)	Dismissed: Mack failed to plead Turk-specific conduct invoking the sixth exception; Turk immune
Whether Mack can recover funds already spent by the Board	Mack sought return of legal fees expended by the Board in the election contest	Defendants asserted Mack lacks standing to recover already-expended public funds	Dismissed for lack of standing; Alabama law allows taxpayers to seek injunctions to prevent proposed illegal expenditures but generally not to recover funds already spent
Whether mandamus review of denial of motion to dismiss is appropriate	Mack implicitly opposed interlocutory review	Defendants argued denial on immunity grounds is reviewable by mandamus	Writ granted: mandamus appropriate to review immunity-based denial of dismissal

Ex parte Moulton, 116 So.3d 1119 (Ala. 2013) (describing exceptions to § 14 sovereign immunity, including injunctions against officials for actions beyond authority)
State Bd. of Educ. v. Mullins, 31 So.3d 91 (Ala. 2009) (explaining county school boards are State agencies shielded by § 14 immunity)
Ex parte Alabama Dep’t of Human Res., 999 So.2d 891 (Ala. 2008) (holding § 14 affords absolute immunity to the State and State agencies)
Ex parte BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 159 So.3d 31 (Ala. 2013) (clarifying the role of standing in public-law versus private-law cases)
Beckerle v. Moore, 909 So.2d 185 (Ala. 2005) (taxpayer lacks standing to recover public funds already expended; injunction may be available to prevent proposed illegal expenditures)