Can an Arkansas county declare itself a 'Bill of Rights' or 'Second Amendment sanctuary' or otherwise sovereign jurisdiction?

Plain-English summary

Representative DeAnn Vaught asked AG Leslie Rutledge about a wave of "Bill of Rights" or "Second Amendment sanctuary" ordinances being passed or proposed by Arkansas counties. The ordinances "serve to declare the counties to be sovereign jurisdictions and to declare the individual county itself as a Bill of Rights sanctuary county." Vaught wanted to know whether these ordinances violated state or federal law, what effect they had on state and federal law, and whether a county could declare itself a sovereign jurisdiction.

The AG could not give a definitive answer without seeing the specific text of any particular ordinance, and she expressly limited her analysis to state law (federal-law questions are outside the AG's opinion authority). What she could and did do was state the general legal framework that any such ordinance has to operate within.

Question 1 (does an ordinance violate state law?): That depends on what the ordinance says. Whatever it says, "[a] county ordinance is of no effect to the extent it conflicts with state law" (Op. Att'y Gen. 2015-023). The conflict question is text-specific.

Question 2 (effect on state law?): None, beyond what state law itself permits. Amendment 55 gives counties self-governance, but only "local legislative authority not denied by the Constitution or by law." A county ordinance cannot change or nullify state law. Counties may not pass legislative acts contrary to general state laws (Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-805(13)). Counties may not legislate "in any manner inconsistent with state law … in any area affirmatively subjected by law to state regulation or control" (Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-808(a)). And the state may preempt local legislative authority by occupying a regulatory field (Kollmeyer v. Greer, 267 Ark. 632, 593 S.W.2d 29 (1980)).

Question 3 (can a county declare itself a sovereign jurisdiction?): If the question is whether a county can declare itself outside the reach of state law, no. Counties are political subdivisions of the state and remain subject to state law (Mears v. Hall, 263 Ark. 827, 569 S.W.2d 91 (1978)). A "sovereign jurisdiction" declaration meant to insulate a county from state legislation has no legal effect.

The opinion is short and lawyerly. It does not address whether a sanctuary ordinance might be valid as a matter of expressing political opposition to particular state laws, or as instruction to county officers about resource allocation in enforcing certain state laws. Those questions would depend on the specific text. What the opinion does establish is that any sanctuary ordinance that purports to override state law fails. The state's authority over its political subdivisions is unconditional in that sense.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2020. 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

Why didn't the AG just say sanctuary ordinances are illegal?
Because the validity question depends on what the ordinance actually says. An ordinance that declares the county "a Bill of Rights sanctuary" without purporting to nullify state law might be merely a political declaration with no legal effect either way. An ordinance that purports to direct the sheriff not to enforce specified state firearm laws would conflict with state law and be invalid as to that direction. An ordinance that declares the county "sovereign" and not subject to state law would be invalid as to that declaration. Each text needs its own analysis.

Can a county refuse to enforce state firearm laws?
The opinion did not address this directly, but the answer flows from the framework. State law generally requires county officers to enforce state law within their jurisdictions. A county ordinance directing officers not to enforce particular state laws would conflict with the state's allocation of enforcement responsibility and would not bind the officers' duties.

What is the difference between Amendment 55 self-governance and state sovereignty?
Amendment 55 gives counties enlarged authority for self-governance, but the authority is "local legislative authority not denied by the Constitution or by law." That last phrase keeps the state's law-making power supreme. Counties get to manage their own affairs within the space the state has not occupied. State sovereignty over the counties is not negotiable.

Could a city pass a similar ordinance?
The opinion was about counties. Cities have parallel limits under Ark. Const. art. 12, § 4 ("[n]o municipal corporation shall be authorized to pass any law contrary to the general laws of the state"). The same general analysis applies.

What about federal Second Amendment law?
The AG declined to address federal-law questions. The Second Amendment binds the state and federal governments, but a county ordinance does not alter what the U.S. Supreme Court or federal Congress has done. Federal law analysis is for federal courts.

Are there any sanctuary-type ordinances that work?
The opinion does not say. As a general matter, an ordinance that does not conflict with state law is fine. An ordinance saying the county supports the Second Amendment, encourages residents to be familiar with it, and asks officers to do their jobs lawfully would not violate state law. The trouble starts when the ordinance tries to direct enforcement choices or claim sovereign immunity from state legislation.

Background and statutory framework

Arkansas counties are creatures of the state, with authority limited by the Arkansas Constitution and state statutes. Mears v. Hall, 263 Ark. 827, 569 S.W.2d 91 (1978), describes counties as "civil divisions of the state for political and judicial purposes" and as "political subdivision[s] of the state for the administration of justice and local government."

Ark. Const. amend. 55, § 1(a), expanded county self-governing authority but kept it subordinate: "A county acting through its Quorum Court may exercise local legislative authority not denied by the Constitution or by law." Section 4 reinforces that quorum courts "shall meet and exercise all such powers as provided by law." The "by law" language preserves state legislative supremacy.

Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-805(13) bars any county legislative act "contrary to the general laws of the state." Cox v. Commissioners of Maynard Fire Imp. Dist. No. 1, 287 Ark. 173, 697 S.W.2d 104 (1985), reads that bar broadly.

Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-808(a) (Supp. 2019) prohibits county legislation "in any manner inconsistent with state law … in any area affirmatively subjected by law to state regulation or control."

Kollmeyer v. Greer, 267 Ark. 632, 593 S.W.2d 29 (1980), establishes the state-preemption doctrine: when state law occupies a regulatory field comprehensively, county ordinances cannot legislate in that field.

The opinion's response to "sovereign jurisdiction" claims uses Mears v. Hall as the controlling authority. The county's relationship to the state is one of political subdivision to sovereign, not coordinate sovereign to sovereign.

Citations

Statutes and constitutional provisions:

• Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-805(13) (Repl. 2013) (no county legislation contrary to general state laws)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-808(a) (Supp. 2019) (no county legislation in state-regulated areas)
• Ark. Const. amend. 55, § 1(a) (Repl. 2019) (county local legislative authority)
• Ark. Const. amend. 55, § 4 (quorum court powers as provided by law)

Cases:

• Cox v. Commissioners of Maynard Fire Imp. Dist. No. 1, 287 Ark. 173, 697 S.W.2d 104 (1985) (no county ordinance contrary to general state laws)
• Kollmeyer v. Greer, 267 Ark. 632, 593 S.W.2d 29 (1980) (state preemption by comprehensive regulation)
• Mears v. Hall, 263 Ark. 827, 569 S.W.2d 91 (1978) (counties as political subdivisions)

Prior opinion referenced:

• Op. Att'y Gen. 2015-023 (county ordinance has no effect to extent it conflicts with state law; counties subordinate to state)

Source

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

Original opinion text

STATE OF ARKANSAS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Opinion No. 2020-019
June 12, 2020
The Honorable DeAnn Vaught
State Representative
266 Dairy Road
Horatio, AR 71842-8904

Dear Representative Vaught:

This is in response to your request for an opinion concerning what your correspondence refers to as "Bill of Rights/Second Amendment sanctuary" ordinances. You note that several Arkansas counties have passed or are considering such ordinances, which you describe as measures that "serve to declare the counties to be sovereign jurisdictions and to declare the individual county itself as a Bill of Rights sanctuary county."

In this regard, you have asked the following questions:

1) Does an ordinance like that described herein violate any provisions of state or federal law?
2) What effect, if any, does an ordinance such as this have upon state and/or federal law?
3) Can a county declare itself to be a sovereign jurisdiction?

RESPONSE

The answers to these questions depend largely upon the specific provisions of the ordinance(s). While I am consequently unable to definitively opine on your questions, I will offer my analysis of the general operative legal principles that appear relevant to your inquiries. This analysis must be limited, however, to a discussion of state law, as questions of federal law are generally not within the scope of opinions issued by this office.

DISCUSSION

Question 1: Does an ordinance like that described herein violate any provisions of state law?

This question cannot be satisfactorily addressed in the abstract. The answer depends upon the particular ordinance, and whether any of its specific provisions conflict with state law. As I have previously observed, "[a] county ordinance is of no effect to the extent it conflicts with state law." Whether any such conflict exists is a question that requires reference to the text of the particular local measure.

Question 2: What effect, if any, does an ordinance such as this have upon state law?

I cannot speculate as to the effect of an ordinance as you have generally described, beyond noting that a county ordinance cannot have the effect of changing or nullifying state law. The adoption of Amendment 55 to the Arkansas Constitution granted enlarged authority for self-governance to counties. But Amendment 55 does not prohibit the General Assembly from enacting laws regulating county affairs. The amendment provides that counties "may exercise local legislative authority not denied by the Constitution or by law." It further provides that "[t]he Quorum Court shall meet and exercise all such powers as provided by law." Thus, a county's self-governing authority remains subordinate to the state.

Counties may not pass "any legislative act contrary to the general laws of the state." Counties also may not legislate "in any manner inconsistent with state law … in any area affirmatively subjected by law to state regulation or control." The state may also preempt any local legislative authority by regulating an area completely so as not to leave reasonable room for local regulation.

Question 3: Can a county declare itself to be a sovereign jurisdiction?

The answer to this question may depend upon what is meant by "sovereign jurisdiction." If a county intends to declare that it is not subject to state law, the answer is "no." Counties are political subdivisions of the state and are subject to state law.

Sincerely,

LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General