Rowe v. Hobbs, 410 S.W.3d 40

Inmates convicted of methamphetamine offenses challenge Act 1782 (2001) as an unconstitutional repeal of the sunset clause in the seventy-percent parole eligibility provision.
Plaintiffs filed December 11, 2008 in Pulaski County Circuit Court seeking declaratory judgment and related relief against the Arkansas Department of Correction and Parole Board.
They argued Act 1782 violated Article 5, Section 23 of the Arkansas Constitution by repealing the sunset without proper reenactment and publication.
Plaintiffs asserted the seventy-percent provision expired on April 30, 2002 and sought declarations or injunctive relief prohibiting its application to post-2002 offenses.
Defendants moved to dismiss in February 2009; the circuit court later denied the motion to dismiss and eventually granted summary judgment against plaintiffs.
On appeal, the Supreme Court affirming the circuit court held that Act 1782 did not violate Article 5, §23 and that the circuit court properly dismissed the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Act 1782 violates Art. 5, §23 by repealing sunset provisions by reference	Gunter et al. contend Act 1782 was enacted in violation of Art. 5, §23.	Appellees argue repeal by reference does not violate Art. 5, §23 and that case law supports this.	Act 1782 does not violate Art. 5, §23.
Whether circuit court properly granted summary judgment (treating dismissal as such) on the merits	Plaintiffs contend there was no pending motion for summary judgment to grant.	Appellees argue the court disposed of the matter via a de facto summary judgment to dismiss.	The court's dismissal on the merits was treated as summary judgment in favor of appellees.
Whether the court erred in dismissing the action with prejudice	Dismissal was inappropriate since no true merits-based rulings were sought.	Dismissal was proper as the issue was solely constitutional and unsupported by viable facts.	affirmed dismissal as proper on the law and record

Rider v. State, 132 Ark. 27 (1918) (repeal by reference not allowed when extending statute; supports strict view of Art. 5, §23)
Beard v. Wilson, 52 Ark. 290 (1889) (extension by reference; invalid where it compounds existing law without reenactment)
Hollis v. McCarroll, 200 Ark. 523 (1940) (repeal by reference not prohibited; context shows limited scope of §23)
Scales v. State, 47 Ark. 476 (1886) (repeal by reference not per se unconstitutional; extension by implication permitted)
Gregory v. Cockrell, 179 Ark. 719 (1929) (repeal by reference not a violation where not extending text of law)
White River Lumber Co. v. White River Drainage Dist. of Phillips & Desha Counties, 141 Ark. 196 (1919) (constitutional limit focuses on extension by reference; repeal not necessarily covered)
Koch v. Adams, 2010 Ark. 131 (2010) (summary-judgment standard; de novo review of constitutional questions)
Travis Lumber Co. v. Deichman, 2009 Ark. 299 (2009) (practice on reviewing summary judgment in constitutional challenges)
First Nat’l Bank of DeWitt v. Cruthis, 360 Ark. 528 (2005) (presumption of validity for statutes; heavy burden on challengers)