576 S.W.3d 8
Ark.2019Background
- Monsanto developed XtendiMax, a dicamba herbicide approved for in‑crop use in Arkansas in 2016; the Arkansas State Plant Board reclassified and restricted dicamba use by rule in 2016 and 2017.
- Monsanto sued the Plant Board in Pulaski County Circuit Court (amended complaint, Nov. 2017), seeking only declaratory and injunctive relief on seven claims: statutory/APA violations, ultra vires/invalid rulemaking (2016 and 2017 promulgations), two Due Process claims, a Commerce Clause claim regarding a de facto University of Arkansas testing requirement, and a challenge to the Board’s composition.
- The Plant Board moved to dismiss on sovereign‑immunity grounds, arguing Arkansas Const. art. 5 § 20 bars the suit; after the Andrews decision (which struck a legislative‑waiver exception), the Board argued Monsanto’s claims were barred in state court.
- The circuit court dismissed Monsanto’s amended complaint on sovereign‑immunity grounds without addressing the merits, and Monsanto appealed.
- While the appeal was pending, the Plant Board promulgated new 2019 pesticide rules (effective Mar. 9, 2019), changing dicamba date restrictions; the court found challenges limited to the 2016/2017 rules moot but retained claims challenging the University testing requirement and Board composition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sovereign immunity bars Monsanto's suit asserting ultra vires and constitutional violations when relief sought is declaratory/injunctive only | Monsanto: ultra vires exception preserves suit; relief is non‑monetary so immunity inapplicable | Plant Board: art.5 §20 precludes any suit against the State in state court (Andrews) | Ultra vires exception survives; sovereign immunity does not bar Monsanto's remaining claims; reversal and remand |
| Whether challenges to the 2016 and 2017 promulgations remain justiciable | Monsanto: these rules harmed its interests and should be enjoined/declared invalid | Plant Board: rulemaking authority justified by prevention of dicamba damage; also asserted immunity defense | Those challenges are moot due to the 2019 Promulgation; court declines advisory review |
| Whether Monsanto sufficiently pleaded ultra vires conduct | Monsanto: complaint contains detailed, specific allegations of statutory and constitutional violations and Board overreach | Plant Board: complaint fails to allege true ultra vires acts and thus immunity applies | Court holds allegations are sufficient to invoke the ultra vires exception and proceed to merits |
| Whether the Commerce Clause and Board‑composition claims can proceed despite sovereign immunity | Monsanto: seeks declaratory/injunctive relief against allegedly unconstitutional practices (testing requirement; composition process) | Plant Board: immunity bars suit; Andrews requires dismissal | Court allows these non‑moot claims to proceed under the ultra vires/constitutional exception to sovereign immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ark. v. Andrews, 535 S.W.3d 616 (Ark. 2018) (held legislative waiver of sovereign immunity is repugnant to art.5 §20)
- Martin v. Haas, 556 S.W.3d 509 (Ark. 2018) (reiterated that ultra vires/unconstitutional acts may be enjoined; declaratory/injunctive relief not barred by sovereign immunity)
- Cammack v. Chalmers, 680 S.W.2d 689 (Ark. 1984) (permits injunctions against illegal, unconstitutional, or ultra vires state action)
- Warren Wholesale Co. v. McLane Co., 286 S.W.3d 709 (Ark. 2008) (administrative rule repeal renders challenges moot; courts take judicial notice of agency regulations)