565 S.W.3d 477
Ark.2019Background
- In 2015 the Arkansas Legislature enacted Act 137, prohibiting local governments from creating protected classifications or anti‑discrimination protections beyond state law; it became effective July 22, 2015.
- On June 16, 2015, Fayetteville passed Ordinance 5781 extending nondiscrimination protections to LGBT persons.
- Appellants sued for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, arguing Ordinance 5781 violated Act 137; the State intervened.
- The circuit court initially found the ordinance did not violate Act 137; this court reversed in Protect Fayetteville v. City of Fayetteville, holding the ordinance conflicted with the statute and was void.
- After remand, new parties were permitted to intervene and filed a counterclaim challenging Act 137’s constitutionality; appellants sought a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of Ordinance 5781, which the circuit court denied.
- This appeal challenges the circuit court’s post‑remand proceedings and denial of the preliminary injunction; the Supreme Court holds the circuit court exceeded its remand jurisdiction, reverses the denial, and dismisses the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ordinance 5781 conflicts with Act 137 | Ordinance unlawfully creates protected classes not in state law and thus conflicts with Act 137 | City argued the ordinance was valid and Act 137’s constitutionality was not properly before the court earlier | Court previously held Ordinance 5781 conflicts with Act 137 and is void |
| Whether circuit court could consider new intervention and counterclaim on remand | Appellants contended remand limited court to implementing this court’s mandate; no new claims | Intervenors and circuit court proceeded to consider constitutionality of Act 137 and deny injunction | Circuit court exceeded jurisdiction on remand by permitting new claims; those proceedings are void |
| Whether appellants were entitled to preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement | Appellants sought injunction as Ordinance was void under state law and previously adjudicated | Circuit court found no likelihood of success on merits and no irreparable harm | Supreme Court reversed denial of injunction because prior mandate already resolved merits; ordinance unenforceable |
| Proper disposition after appellate mandate and void post‑remand proceedings | Appellants argued remand left nothing for trial court to decide and case should be ended | Circuit court continued litigation; appellees urged consideration of constitutional challenge | Court held prior opinion and mandate conclusively resolved the controversy; remand court’s actions beyond mandate are void and case is dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Protect Fayetteville v. City of Fayetteville, 510 S.W.3d 258 (Ark. 2017) (appellate opinion holding Ordinance 5781 conflicts with Act 137)
- Dolphin v. Wilson, 983 S.W.2d 113 (Ark. 1998) (trial court on remand is limited to implementing appellate mandate)
- Municipality of Helena–W. Helena v. Weaver, 286 S.W.3d 132 (Ark. 2008) (municipal ordinances that conflict with state statutes are void under the Arkansas Constitution)