An abuse-of-power lawsuit against Republican gubernatorial contender Attorney General Leslie Rutledge survived a second attempt to kill it on Tuesday with a judge's ruling rejecting arguments that the case should be thrown out of court.
State lawyers have already promised to appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court any ruling by Pulaski Circuit Judge Chip Welch that does not recognize that the attorney general is immune from suit, absent proof of illegal activity.
They describe the litigation as a baseless stunt mounted by Rutledge's political opponents, stating that the courts do not have the authority to dictate to the attorney general -- no matter who holds the position -- how the office should operate.
The only ones with the authority to curb the attorney general's power are the voters, who decide who holds office, or the General Assembly, which delegates authority to the office holder, the state's attorneys contend.
"The opinion issued by the trial court fails to appropriately consider the actual legal responsibilities Attorney General Leslie Rutledge has to educate and advocate on behalf of Arkansas consumers," Stephanie Sharp, a spokesperson for the attorney general's office, said in an emailed statement. "The Attorney General plans to immediately appeal this erroneous decision."
The group sued in February claiming that Rutledge has no legal justification, only her political ambitions, to intervene in out-of-state lawsuits involving the presidential election and the National Rifle Association, among others.
The suit also accuses Rutledge, the first woman and first Republican attorney general, of using a public-service advertising campaign as a shadow effort to promote her run for governor. Further, the suit claims her participation in groups supporting former President Donald Trump, such as the Lawyers for Trump and The Rule of Law Defense Fund, was illegal.
They want the court to force Rutledge to repay the state whatever her office has spent following her orders.
In his seven-page ruling, Welch stated that the plaintiffs, an eight-member taxpayer group, have shown sufficient evidence to meet the standard set by law to overcome dismissal arguments based on claims of immunity and other grounds.
"A pattern or course of conduct of using the public persona of the Attorney General as an adjunct to a gubernatorial campaign emerges supporting the conclusion that the Motion to Dismiss should fail at this stage," Welch wrote.
In his ruling, Welch stated that Rutledge's decision to get involved with National Rifle Association's litigation both in New York and in Texas is "a more troubling exercise of power ... where the attorney general allegedly acted in her capacity as a state actor ... in a private bankruptcy, in a foreign state."
Rutledge asserted that the litigation against the gun-rights group was politically motivated and that she had a duty to come to the NRA's defense to protect Arkansas residents' interest in Second Amendment gun rights.
In June, two-thirds of the lawsuit -- allegations involving how Rutledge uses a public-service announcement and her participation in groups supporting former President Donald Trump -- were ordered dismissed for lack of evidence unless the plaintiffs could, as allowed by law, produce more evidence of potential wrongdoing.
The plaintiffs subsequently submitted an amended and expanded complaint, which was the subject of the current dismissal motion.