Will the Arkansas Attorney General weigh in on whether Act 109 of 2015 is constitutional when the same statute is already being litigated in court?

Plain-English summary

State Representative Bruce Cozart asked the Arkansas AG whether Act 109 of 2015 was constitutional under several provisions of the Arkansas Constitution. AG Leslie Rutledge declined to opine. Two lawsuits raising the same legal questions were already in active litigation: Opponents of Ordinance 6121 v. City of Hot Springs in Garland County Circuit Court, and Pritchett v. City of Hot Springs on appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court. Consistent with longstanding AG office policy, opinions are not issued on matters pending before the courts for resolution.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2016. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Why doesn't the AG issue opinions on pending litigation?
A: AG opinions are advisory and the AG is part of the executive branch. Issuing legal opinions on matters that courts are actively deciding could prejudice the litigation, conflict with judicial resolution, or run the AG into the same dispute on the wrong side. Many state AGs have a similar longstanding non-interference policy.

Q: What was Act 109 of 2015?
A: It amended Ark. Code Ann. § 14-40-501 (the statute governing annexation by certain Arkansas cities). The constitutional challenge focused on whether the act violated Ark. Const., art. 2, sections 1, 2, 13, 22, and 29 (basic rights, due process, takings, and related provisions).

Citations and references

Statutes and constitutional provisions:

• Ark. Code Ann. § 14-40-501
• Ark. Const., art. 2, §§ 1, 2, 13, 22, 29

Pending cases at time of opinion:

• Opponents of Ordinance 6121 v. City of Hot Springs, Garland Cir. Ct. CV-16-164
• Pritchett v. City of Hot Springs, Ark. S. Ct. CV-16-840

Source

• Landing page: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Official summary

In light of provisions of Ark. Const., art. 2, sections 1, 2, 13, 22 and 29, is Act 109 of 2015 constitutional? RESPONSE: I must respectfully decline to answer your question because that body of law is currently the subject of litigation in two separate cases. My office adheres to the longstanding policy of the Attorney General's office, as a member of the executive branch, to decline to issue opinions on matters that are pending before the courts for resolution.

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2016-121
December 13, 2016
The Honorable Bruce Cozart
State Representative
420 Rock Creek Road
Hot Springs, AR 71913-9261
Dear Representative Cozart:
STATE OF ARKANSAS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
This is in response to your request for my opinion regarding the constitutionality
of Act 109of2015, which amended Ark. Code Ann.§ 14-40-501 (Supp. 2015).
RESPONSE
I must respectfully decline to issue an opinion on your question. That body of law
is currently the subject of litigation in two separate cases: 1) Opponents of
Ordinance 6121 v. City of Hot Springs, Case No. CV-16-164 (Garland Cir., 1st
Div.); and 2) Pritchett v. City of Hot Springs, on appeal to the Arkansas Supreme
Court, Docket No. CV-16-840.
My office adheres to the longstanding policy of the Attorney General's office, as a
member of the executive branch, to decline to issue opinions on matters that are
pending before the courts for resolution. 1
Sincerely,
~~- L. /./a"fo
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General
1 See Ops. Att'y Gen. 2016-050, 2016-003, 2015-140, 2015-005, 2010-047 (and opinions cited
therein).
323 CENTER STREET, SUITE 200 · LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
TELEPHONE (501) 682-2007 · FAX (501) 682-8084 .
ARKANSASAG.GOV