592 S.W.3d 695
Ark.2020Background:
- Arkansas State Police (ASP) maintains a statutorily mandated Towing Rotation List to clear disabled/abandoned vehicles on state highways.
- ASP Rule 2.10 disqualifies towing operators with felony convictions (ASP began interpreting it in 2016 as barring any felony conviction, regardless of age).
- Steve’s Auto Center was on a county towing-rotation list; employee Steven Gafner had two felony convictions from 1995 and was removed from ASP’s list in 2016 while the company remained.
- Steve’s Auto Center and Gafner sued ASP and two officers for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging Rule 2.10 violated Ark. Code Ann. § 17-1-103 and the Arkansas Constitution.
- The circuit court granted ASP summary judgment based on sovereign immunity; the Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether § 17-1-103 applied and whether the illegal-act exception to sovereign immunity was met.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 17-1-103 (limiting automatic bars to employment for felons) applies to ASP’s towing-rotation decisions | §17-1-103 bars automatic exclusion of felons from trades; ASP’s tow-list placement is effectively registration/licensing and thus subject to the statute | ASP does not license or regulate the occupation of towing; the Tow Rotation List is optional and does not prevent persons from towing | Held: §17-1-103 does not apply to ASP here because ASP does not license or regulate towing; placement on the list is not licensing/registration |
| Whether Rule 2.10 is illegal/ultra vires under § 17-1-103 such that sovereign immunity’s illegal-act exception applies | Rule 2.10’s blanket felony exclusion is an unlawful automatic bar in violation of §17-1-103 | Rule 2.10 is not governed by §17-1-103, so it is not illegal under that statute | Held: Rule 2.10 does not violate §17-1-103, so the illegal-act exception to sovereign immunity is not met |
| Whether sovereign immunity bars appellants’ suit for declaratory/injunctive relief | Sovereign immunity does not apply because ASP acted unlawfully and ultra vires | Sovereign immunity bars the suit absent a valid illegal-act or other exception | Held: Sovereign immunity bars the suit; summary judgment for ASP affirmed |
| Whether declaratory relief under Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-207 is warranted | Plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment invalidating Rule 2.10 | Defendants argued the statute §17-1-103 does not apply and no invalidity exists | Held: No declaratory relief; Rule 2.10 not invalid under §17-1-103 |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Daniel, 2014 Ark. 519 (standard for reviewing sovereign-immunity dismissal at summary judgment)
- Milligan v. Singer, 2019 Ark. 177 (whether a party is immune from suit is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Ark. Oil & Gas Comm’n v. Hurd, 2018 Ark. 397 (scope of sovereign immunity and when judgment would control the state)
- Ark. Dep’t of Cmty. Corr. v. City of Pine Bluff, 2013 Ark. 36 (sovereign immunity extends to state agencies)
- Martin v. Haas, 2018 Ark. 283 (illegal-act exception to sovereign immunity for ultra vires, unconstitutional, or unlawful agency acts)
- Bolden v. Watt, 290 Ark. 343 (statute does not confer a right to a particular job)
- Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. USAble Mut. Ins. Co., 2017 Ark. 368 (statutory-construction principles)
- Potter v. City of Tontitown, 371 Ark. 200 (give statutory words ordinary meaning; avoid rendering words superfluous)
- Hobbs v. Jones, 2012 Ark. 293 (executive branch authority is limited to that granted by statute or constitution)