In a 6-1 ruling, the Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday reversed a Pulaski County circuit judge's ruling that the Arkansas General Assembly failed to follow the Arkansas Constitution in passing an emergency clause in Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders' signature education law, and dismissed the case.
The lawsuit was brought by a group of Phillips County residents and two public education activists who sought to delay implementation of the LEARNS Act. At the center of the legal challenge is debate over a parliamentary procedure state lawmakers routinely use to enact an emergency clause, which allows bills to take effect immediately instead of 91 days after the session ends. A two-thirds vote of the House and Senate is required to enact an emergency clause.
The state's high court on Thursday overturned a June 30 ruling from Pulaski County Circuit Judge Herbert Wright, who ruled the emergency clause contained in Act 237 of 2023 -- the LEARNS Act -- did not receive a separate roll-call vote as required by the Arkansas Constitution, rendering the emergency clause procedurally invalid, and the law would take effect Aug. 1 rather than March 8 when the governor signed the law.
[GUIDE: The Arkansas LEARNS Act]
Attorney General Tim Griffin appealed Wright's ruling to the state Supreme Court.
On June 15, the state's Supreme Court overturned a temporary restraining order that Wright issued May 26 blocking the LEARNS Act from taking effect and remanded the case back to Pulaski County circuit court. The high court's 5-2 ruling June 15 did not touch on the case's underlying issue of whether lawmakers followed the state constitution when passing the LEARNS Act's emergency clause.
[DOCUMENT: Read court's reversal of lower court ruling » arkansasonline.com/1013supcourt/]
Sanders said Thursday in a written statement that the "Supreme Court ruling in favor of the LEARNS Act is a historic victory for Arkansas parents, teachers, and students, and a crushing defeat for the partisan extremists who tried to undermine our kids' futures."
"My administration will continue to implement our transformational reforms which empower parents to choose the best school for their family, prohibit indoctrination, raise teacher pay from one of the lowest to one of the best in the nation, and invest in pre-K, early literacy, and career and technical education so every Arkansan can find a good job in their community," the Republican governor said.
The LEARNS Act increases the starting annual teacher salary from $36,000 to $50,000, gives teachers making above the minimum a $2,000 raise, and creates a voucher program, known as Education Freedom Accounts, for students to attend a private or parochial school or home school. The vouchers are worth 90% of the per-pupil funding schools receive from the state.
House Speaker Matthew Shepherd, R-El Dorado, said Thursday that "I am glad to see the Arkansas Supreme Court has ruled that our legislative voting and journal are indeed proper and constitutional.
"Our practice in the House has existed for years under both Republican and Democratic leadership, and I am pleased with the Court's recognition of its propriety," he said in a written statement.
Senate President Pro Tempore Bart Hester, R-Cave Springs, said in a statement he's pleased with the high court's ruling, adding that "It's becoming a broken record that another activist Judge from Little Rock ruling is overturned."
Griffin said Thursday in a written statement that, "This is a win for the people of Arkansas.
"The Arkansas Supreme Court confirmed that the General Assembly's long-established procedure for adopting emergency clauses is valid and not subject to challenge," the Republican attorney general said. "This ruling dismisses the lawsuit challenging LEARNS and confirms that all similar challenges fail as a matter of law and must be thrown out.
"This is the correct result, and I applaud the efforts of my team to protect the Arkansas Constitution," Griffin said.
Ali Noland, an attorney for the group that brought the lawsuit challenging the LEARNS Act's emergency clause, said Thursday that the "Arkansas Supreme Court ruling makes it much harder for Arkansans to hold their government accountable for willfully violating the Arkansas Constitution."
"Despite the fact that this lawsuit has now been moot for more than two months, the Arkansas Supreme Court still chose to wade into the issue in order to make clear that, no matter how blatantly [the] Arkansas legislature violates the Arkansas Constitution, our courts will now be required to look the other way," she said in a written statement.
The suit was filed May 8 in Pulaski County after the state Board of Education used a provision of the LEARNS Act to approve a transformation contract allowing the Friendship Education Foundation, a nonprofit charter school group, to take control of the Marvell-Elaine School District in Phillips County. Wright's order meant the state had to temporarily cancel the contract with the charter school group, given it was approved when the law was not legally in effect. On Aug. 1, the state signed a new contract with the charter school group to take direct management of the school district.
JUSTICES' OPINIONS
In the Supreme Court's majority opinion in the case, Justice Barbara Webb said "we agree with appellees that, given the timing of this appeal, our decision would have no effect on the underlying controversy of this case -- the effective date of the LEARNS Act."
But the court may still review issues on appeal if a recognized exception to the mootness doctrine applies, and one such exception is for matters involving a substantial public interest that are likely to be litigated in the future, she wrote.
"The present matter falls squarely within this exception because it calls into question the decades-long process of both the House and the Senate for voting on emergency clauses," Webb said. "To be sure, if the circuit court's order stands, countless State actions made in reliance on effective emergency clauses will be cast in doubt and potentially be subjected to collateral attacks. The substantial interest of both the public and our coordinate branches of government necessitates that we resolve the issues raised in this appeal."
At issue is whether the General Assembly complied with Article 5, Section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution when it enacted the LEARNS Act's emergency clause, she said.
Webb said the court reaffirms the precedent in a 1918 ruling and concludes that "the plain language of the constitution designates the journal of each chamber as the official record of the General Assembly's votes.
"In this instance, the legislative journals reflect that the LEARNS Act and its emergency clause were adopted by separate votes," she said. "The House Journal indicates a separate roll call and vote for the emergency clause. Likewise, the Senate Journal indicates a separate roll call and vote for the emergency clause. Thus, according to the official record, the emergency clause was passed in compliance with article 5, section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution.
"In reaching the opposite conclusion, the circuit court ignored the face of the record and instead relied on parol evidence -- video recordings of House and Senate proceedings -- to find that the General Assembly's process for adopting emergency clauses is constitutionally infirm," Webb wrote. "[T]he journals are the official record and it was erroneous for the circuit court to look to parol evidence in reaching its decision."
Justice Courtney Hudson agreed with Webb's opinion.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Karen Baker said she concurs in the majority's decision to reverse and dismiss Wright's ruling, but her analysis differs from Webb's opinion.
She said that "The lead opinion's limited sovereign-immunity analysis conflicts with the broad language of Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas v. Andrews [ruling in 2018], and until Andrews is overruled, suit against the State is barred."
In a concurring opinion, Justice Rhonda Wood said she agrees the court should reverse and dismiss Wright's ruling, but her analysis differs from Webb's opinion.
"The lawsuit ... challenged how the General Assembly voted, not where it kept its records," she wrote. "Because assessing how the General Assembly conducted its proceedings would violate separation of powers, I would decline to answer this political question.
"... We cannot resolve a legislative procedure-and-process issue without exceeding our judicial role by answering a political question," Wood said. "The Arkansas Constitution gives each house authority to determine its own rules and procedures."
Special Justice Cory Cox agreed with Wood's opinion. Justice Cody Hiland -- the former Republican Party of Arkansas chair whom Sanders appointed to the high court on July 3 to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Robin Wynne in late June -- recused himself from the case. On July 19, Sanders appointed Cox, an attorney and a lobbyist, as a special justice in the case.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Shawn Womack said he agrees with the majority's disposition to reverse and dismiss the ruling, but "I write separately because dismissal of the case is proper persuant to article 5, section 20 of the Arkansas Constitution.
"Without an express constitutional provision to the contrary, the State can never properly be a defendant in any of its courts," he wrote.
In his dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Dan Kemp said the court "now renders an advisory opinion on the Act's emergency clause."
"In my view, the public interest exception does not apply because any future litigation on emergency clauses is speculative," he wrote. "Therefore, I would dismiss the appeal as moot."
Information for this article was contributed by Neal Earley of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.