sovereign immunity in Arkansas

2026This recognized exemption from sovereign immunity is alive and well following this court’s ruling in Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas v. Andrews, 2018 Ark. 12 , 535 S.W.3d 616 , in which we held that the General Assembly cannot waive the State’s sovereign immunity.

2026This recognized exemption from sovereign immunity is alive and well following this court’s ruling in Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas v. Andrews, 2018 Ark. 12 , 535 S.W.3d 616 , in which we held that the General Assembly cannot waive the State’s sovereign immunity.

2020Instead he asserts that exceptions to the doctrine of sovereign 5 Banks, supra. 6 Id. 7 Short v. Westark Cmty. Coll., 347 Ark. 497 , 65 S.W.3d 440 (2002). 8 Ark.

2020Instead he asserts that exceptions to the doctrine of sovereign 5 Banks, supra. 6 Id. 7 Short v. Westark Cmty. Coll., 347 Ark. 497 , 65 S.W.3d 440 (2002). 8 Ark.

2017Dep’t of Cmty. Corr. v. City of Pine Bluff, 2013 Ark. 36 , 425 S.W.3d 731 , and we have recognized that a suit against a public official in his or her official capacity is essentially a suit-against that official’s agency, e.g., Ark.

2017Dep’t of Cmty. Corr. v. City of Pine Bluff, 2013 Ark. 36 , 425 S.W.3d 731 , and we have recognized that a suit against a public official in his or her official capacity is essentially a suit-against that official’s agency, e.g., Ark.

2000In the recent case of Grine v. Board of Trustees, we summarized our rules regarding the doctrine of sovereign immunity: Grine v. Board of Trustees, 338 Ark. at 796-97 , 2 S.W.3d at 58 .

2000In the recent case of Grine v. Board of Trustees, we summarized our rules regarding the doctrine of sovereign immunity: Grine v. Board of Trustees, 338 Ark. at 796-97 , 2 S.W.3d at 58 .

2023Auth. v. Wiley, 2020 Ark. 395, at 9 , 611 S.W.3d 493 , 500 (Baker, J., concurring) (noting that “sovereign immunity is jurisdictional immunity from suit”); see also Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ark. v. Andrews, 2018 Ark. 12, at 5 , 535 S.W.3d 616, 619 (“Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional immunity from suit . . . .”). 5 an immune defendant, the defendant has essentially lost this protection, regardless of the outcome.

2022See Wiley, 2020 Ark. 395, at 9 , 611 S.W.3d at 500 (Baker, J., concurring) (noting that “sovereign immunity is jurisdictional immunity from suit”); see also Andrews, 2018 Ark. 12, at 5 , 535 S.W.3d at 619 (“Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional immunity from suit . . . .”).

2003See Chambers v. Stern, 347 Ark. 395 , 64 S.W.3d 737 (2002); Arkansas Tech Univ. v. Link, supra. As we explained in Arkansas Tech Univ. v. Link, supra, “if a judgment for the plaintiff will operate to control the action of the State or subject it to liability, the suit is one against the State and is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.” 341 Ark. at 502 , 17 S.W.3d at 813 .

2003See Chambers v. Stern, 347 Ark. 395 , 64 S.W.3d 737 (2002); Arkansas Tech Univ. v. Link, supra. As we explained in Arkansas Tech Univ. v. Link, supra, “if a judgment for the plaintiff will operate to control the action of the State or subject it to liability, the suit is one against the State and is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.” 341 Ark. at 502 , 17 S.W.3d at 813 .

2024Id., 89 S.W.3d at 924 . 10 The sovereign-immunity doctrine applies to state agencies and state employees sued in their official capacities.4 Muntaqim, 2022 Ark.

2024Id., 89 S.W.3d at 924 . 10 The sovereign-immunity doctrine applies to state agencies and state employees sued in their official capacities.4 Muntaqim, 2022 Ark.

2020As this court said in Monsanto Co. v. Arkansas State Plant Board, the exception to the sovereign-immunity doctrine for arbitrary, bad-faith, or ultra vires State conduct is “alive and well.” 2019 Ark. 194, at 9 , 576 S.W.3d 8, 13 .

2020As this court said in Monsanto Co. v. Arkansas State Plant Board, the exception to the sovereign-immunity doctrine for arbitrary, bad-faith, or ultra vires State conduct is “alive and well.” 2019 Ark. 194, at 9 , 576 S.W.3d 8, 13 .

2000See Cross v. Arkansas Livestock & Poultry Comm’n, 328 Ark. 255 , 943 S.W.2d 230 (1997) (doctrine of sovereign immunity .is “rigid and . . . may be waived only in limited circumstances”), and, under § 19-10-305(a), state officers and employees are statutorily protected by sovereign immunity.

2000See Cross v. Arkansas Livestock & Poultry Comm’n, 328 Ark. 255 , 943 S.W.2d 230 (1997) (doctrine of sovereign immunity .is “rigid and . . . may be waived only in limited circumstances”), and, under § 19-10-305(a), state officers and employees are statutorily protected by sovereign immunity.

2013We considered this to be mandatory language, and stated that “it can easily be inferred that the legislature intended to waive the State’s sovereign immunity so that an underpaid retiree might sue to have his or her underpayment corrected.” Id. at 544 , 268 S.W.3d at 902 .

2013We considered this to be mandatory language, and stated that “it can easily be inferred that the legislature intended to waive the State’s sovereign immunity so that an underpaid retiree might sue to have his or her underpayment corrected.” Id. at 544 , 268 S.W.3d at 902 .

2013See id., 269 S.W.3d at 795 .

2013See id., 269 S.W.3d at 795 .

2026Furthermore, the Court “reject[ed] any contention that substantive federal law by its own force necessarily overrides the sovereign immunity of the States.” Id. at 732. 6 C.

2026Furthermore, the Court “reject[ed] any contention that substantive federal law by its own force necessarily overrides the sovereign immunity of the States.” Id. at 732 . 6 C.

2018Office of Child Support Enf't v. Mitchell, 330 Ark. 338 , 954 S.W.2d 907 (1997).

2018Office of Child Support Enf't v. Mitchell, 330 Ark. 338 , 954 S.W.2d 907 (1997).

2024Id., 89 S.W.3d at 924 . 10 The sovereign-immunity doctrine applies to state agencies and state employees sued in their official capacities.4 Muntaqim, 2022 Ark.

2024Id., 89 S.W.3d at 924 . 10 The sovereign-immunity doctrine applies to state agencies and state employees sued in their official capacities.4 Muntaqim, 2022 Ark.

2018See, e.g., Burcham, 2014 Ark. 61 (reversing and dismissing because a sovereign-immunity waiver did not apply).

2018See Washington Cty. v. Bd. of Trs., 2016 Ark. 34 , 480 S.W.3d 173 (holding that the university is an instrumentality of the State and that it was immune from ad valorem taxation); Bd. of Trs. v. Burcham, 2014 Ark. 61 (holding that Burcham’s wrongful- termination complaint was barred by sovereign immunity and that a sovereign-immunity exception did not apply).

2008Department of Human Servs. v. Crunkleton, 303 Ark. 21 , 791 S.W.2d 704 (1990).

2007See Arkansas Constitution, art. 5 , § 20 ("The State of Arkansas shall never be made a defendant in any of her courts"); and DHS v. Crunkleton , 303 Ark. 21 , 791 S.W.2d 794 (1990) ("Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional immunity from suit.") Section 1(a) of your measure, however, waives sovereign immunity for "misconduct resulting in violation of a party's civil rights. . . ." Your measure thus waives sovereign immunity only in cases in which misconduct resulting in a civil rights violation actually occurred.

2008More recently, in Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes, and Lerach, LLP et al. v. State , 342 Ark. 303 , 320 , 28 S.W.3d 842 (2000), the Arkansas Supreme Court offered the following familiar formulation regarding sovereign immunity: Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional immunity from suit.

2008More recently, in Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes, and Lerach, LLP et al. v. State , 342 Ark. 303 , 320 , 28 S.W.3d 842 (2000), the Arkansas Supreme Court offered the following familiar formulation regarding sovereign immunity: Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional immunity from suit.

2026See Martin v. Haas, 2018 Ark. 283 , at 8, 556 S.W.3d 509, 515 (“Because appellee has asserted that Act 633 violates qualified voters’ constitutional right to vote and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, not money damages, this action is not subject to the asserted sovereign-immunity defense.”).

2022Martin v. Haas, 2018 Ark. 283 , at 7, 556 S.W.3d 509, 514 .

2020See, e.g., Comm’n on Judicial Discipline & Disability v. Digby, 303 Ark. 24 , 792 S.W.2d 594 (1990); Ark.

2020See, e.g., Comm’n on Judicial Discipline & Disability v. Digby, 303 Ark. 24 , 792 S.W.2d 594 (1990); Ark.

2020As we explained in Williams v. McCoy, 2018 Ark. 17, at 3 , 535 S.W.3d 266, 268 , “[a] complaint alleging illegal and unconstitutional acts by the State as an exception to the sovereign immunity doctrine must comply with our fact-pleading rules.” Thus, as a matter of law, we hold that the circuit court erred in ruling that McArty pleaded 5 sufficient facts to overcome Hutchinson’s defense of sovereign immunity.1 Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court’s order denying Hutchinson’s motion to dismiss and remand with instructions to dismiss the complaint.

2020As we explained in Williams v. McCoy, 2018 Ark. 17, at 3 , 535 S.W.3d 266, 268 , “[a] complaint alleging illegal and unconstitutional acts by the State as an exception to the sovereign immunity doctrine must comply with our fact-pleading rules.” Thus, as a matter of law, we hold that the circuit court erred in ruling that McArty pleaded 5 sufficient facts to overcome Hutchinson’s defense of sovereign immunity.1 Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court’s order denying Hutchinson’s motion to dismiss and remand with instructions to dismiss the complaint.

2018See Dep’t of Human Servs. v. State, 312 Ark. 481 , 850 S.W.2d 847 (1993).

2018See Dep’t of Human Servs. v. State, 312 Ark. 481 , 850 S.W.2d 847 (1993).