Judge rules that LEARNS Act not effective until Aug. 1

Pulaski County Circuit Court Judge Herb Wright on Friday (June 30) ruled that the Arkansas LEARNS Act cannot go into effect until Aug. 1. The ruling, if it stands, could complicate the past few months of efforts by the Gov. Sarah Sanders’ administration to implement the law.

The case was brought by residents of the Marvell-Elaine School District and education advocates. The State Board of Education had voted to direct Arkansas Education Secretary Jacob Oliva to place the district under the management of the nonprofit Friendship Education Foundation through a transformation contract made possible by the LEARNS Act.

The plaintiffs had sued saying lawmakers had erred in voting on the bill and its emergency clause at the same time. The Arkansas Constitution says the votes on the two are to be separate. The votes were recorded separately by the House and Senate clerks.

The plaintiffs said the State Board of Education had not yet had the authority to create the contract because the law’s emergency clause was not valid. Plaintiffs also said legislators had failed to establish an emergency in the part of the law related to the transformation contracts, and that the emergency clause was invalid because it declared an emergency only in some provisions of the act.

Wright had determined that the plaintiffs had a likelihood of success and granted a temporary restraining order that was to be in place until the hearing could be held June 20.

JUDGE WRIGHT’S RULING
In his 10-page ruling on Friday, Wright said the law is clear as to emergency clause votes being separate.

“There seems to be no dispute between the parties on what the journals reflect. They both indicate that two separate votes were taken, but the video of the proceedings that was presented at the July 20 hearing clearly show that only one vote was taken. For this Court to proceed as if the Journals were incontrovertible proof of the constitutionality of the LEARNS Act’s emergency clause would be to ‘depend on the fidelity with which a journal clerk has made his entries’ and ‘render the laws as uncertain as the terms of a horse trade.'”

“The Court was presented with the video at the July 20 hearing. There is no dispute from the parties that the Journals reflect two votes were taken but that the video of the proceedings clearly show that one vote was taken. Additionally, the Court was presented with testimony from sitting members of both the House and Senate, who each corroborated the video and testified that it accurately reflected the proceedings in each chamber, regardless of what was recorded in the Journals. There is no getting around the fact that the bill and emergency clause were not voted on by separate roll-call votes in either house. The emergency clause simply had not been constitutionally passed when it left the Legislature and made its way to the Governor. The State may defer to the rules of the Legislature, which allow for such a combined vote, but such rules do not insulate the Legislature from the requirements of the Arkansas Constitution.”

“The Court finds that the Emergency Clause of the LEARNS Act was not enacted pursuant to the requirements of that Constitution. Since that provision of the law is not effective, all provisions of the Act purported to be immediately effective due to the invalid clause are now effective as of the default date the Act would be effective – August 1, 2023.”

Judge Wright did find in favor of the defendants on the issue of an illegal exaction. Plaintiffs argued that because the emergency clause was invalid, the state’s partnership with a charter school organization to run the Marvell-Elaine School District was invalid.

However, Wright said there had not been an illegal exaction.

“Plaintiffs have not, however, shown that there has been an illegal exaction. That question is not properly before the Court, as it seems to be premature. The testimony presented at the June 20 hearing indicates that no action is currently being taken under the contract because of this pending case at bar. There have not been any payments made under the contract yet, so there has been no illegal exaction, and there is no action pursuant to the transformation contract yet for this Court to enjoin,” he wrote.

On the issue of sovereign immunity, Wright said the state could not use this as a defense.

“Having found that the Legislature did not constitutionally pass the LEARNS Act, the Court necessarily rejects the Defendants’ position regarding sovereign immunity. It is axiomatic enough that the State may not be made a party to a suit in her own courts. The Plaintiffs could not, for example, seek a monetary judgment against the State under these circumstances. Yet, the State may not resort to a claim of sovereign immunity where the State is acting illegally, and a request for injunctive relief may survive an assertion of sovereign immunity… Sovereign immunity does not entitle the State to ignore that Constitution,” he said.

REACTION

Ali Noland, attorney for the plaintiffs, noted the case was “not complicated” and that passing an emergency clause “is not a mere technicality.” Noland said the state was off-base in its arguments against her clients.

“Every Arkansan should pay close attention to the arguments that the Attorney General made in this case. From arguing that the court should not be allowed to consider the official videos, to claiming that the word “separate” doesn’t mean separate, to trying to block the testimony of legislators and legislative staff, to arguing that Arkansas courts have no authority to decide whether the General Assembly violated the Constitution, the Attorney General’s office has tried to hide the truth and allow the General Assembly to get away with blatantly violating the Constitution,” Noland said.

She also said the judge’s ruling on sovereign immunity, which Justice Karen Baker suggested was applicable in an earlier ruling on a temporary restraining order in the case, was correct.

“The State of Arkansas violated the Arkansas Constitution. Had Judge Wright accepted the Defendants’ arguments that the lawsuit should be barred by sovereign immunity or the political-question doctrine, it would seriously call into question the validity and authority of the Arkansas Constitution. After all, a constitution that cannot be enforced is meaningless. So, today, the Plaintiffs are grateful that the circuit court recognized that even the Arkansas General Assembly is not above the law and must adhere to the Constitution,” Noland said.

Gov. Sanders said her program would continue to move forward despite the ruling.

“This politically motivated lawsuit is absurd and those responsible should be ashamed of themselves for trying to hurt our kids’ futures. We will continue to implement LEARNS raising teacher pay, empowering parents, and expanding literacy programs. The Attorney General will immediately appeal this ruling,” Sanders said.

Attorney General Tim Griffin said Judge Wright’s ruling will not be the final decision in the case and confirmed he planned to appeal immediately.

“I will appeal this ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court immediately and will continue to defend the LEARNS Act enthusiastically,” Griffin said.