Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Courtney Hudson (middle) chats with Chief Justice Karen Baker before an address from the governor on Jan. 14, 2025. Justice Rhonda Wood sits to the left of Hudson. (Mary Hennigan/Arkansas Advocate)
Newly elected Arkansas Supreme Court Chief Justice Karen Baker apparently came into office intent on cleaning house: she tried to fire several high-ranking court officials and replace three judges on the court’s judicial discipline commission within two days of taking her oath of office.
Her actions resulted in an ongoing public feud with a majority of the court’s justices, raising constitutional and legal questions the remain unresolved.
Since Jan. 3, the public has been treated to no less than three orders from the court’s five most conservative justices challenging Baker’s authority and one order from Baker asserting her authority over court employees and to appoint judges to the disciplinary body without the other justices’ consent.
The origins of the brouhaha seem to stem from Baker’s visit in early December to the office of Marty Sullivan, director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, while he wasn’t there, according to a Jan. 11 report in Arkansas Business. But tensions at the court have been percolating for some time.
That Dec. 4 visit to Sullivan’s office by the chief justice-elect led to complaints by some of his staff to the AOC personnel office, which completed its investigation last week, whereupon Sullivan turned over its findings to the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission.
Baker was sworn in on Jan. 1, and the next day called Sullivan and court Police Chief Pete Hollingsworth into her office to confront them “about their responses to Freedom of Information Act requests involving her,” according to the Jan. 3 per curiam order by the five justices. She threatened them with firing, the order says.
On Jan. 3, Baker did try to fire Sullivan, Hollingsworth and eight other court employees, according to the order, which described the situation as “unnecessary and unfortunate.” The order rescinded the firings and forbade any court employee from processing the terminations without the agreement of at least four justices.
An administrative order accompanying the per curiam declares that only the AOC director can hire or terminate the office’s staff. Citing state law, the order says the director “cannot be terminated without the express consent of at least four members of the Supreme Court.”
The five-member majority followed up the order regarding the AOC with another on Jan. 6 saying the chief justice also didn’t have unilateral authority to appoint new members to the judicial discipline committee and lamenting that Baker hadn’t consulted her colleagues before doing so. The majority also named their own appointees to the JDDC.
Baker shot back with her own order on Jan. 8, citing Amendment 80 of the Arkansas Constitution as giving her sole authority over administration of the court system, including the Supreme Court. She declared the previous two orders invalid and an employment contract between Sullivan and a court majority null and void. The five opposing justices said her order amounted to no more than a dissenting opinion.
The back-and-forth gave state personnel officials whiplash regarding the status of the AOC employees, especially Sullivan.
After Secretary of Transformation and Shared Services Leslie Filken notified Baker that the Jan. 3 majority opinion settled Sullivan’s employment status, Baker responded with a terse email:
Attached please find the Order of January 8, 2025. It is simple Marty Sullivan is terminated. If the justice system were a corporation, I am the CEO.
The remaining employees, noticed in the previous letter, may remain on the payroll for the present time while they reapply for their positions.
Legal scholar John DiPippa told Roby Brock on Capitol View last weekend that the dispute boils down to the definition of “administer” in both the law and the constitution. That’s what a lot of legal disputes end up being about: definitions.
Such disputes usually end up being decided by — the Supreme Court. In this instance, of course, the dispute is among the members of the court.
I enjoy a good legal and political spat as much as anyone, but the current infighting has serious implications for the administration of justice in the Natural State — and for the public’s trust in the court.
Our court system exists to resolve disputes, among other things. The Arkansas Supreme Court should be the final arbiter of legal questions. Even when the members of the court disagree, a final resolution usually arises when a majority of the seven justices rule for or against a party involved in a dispute.
But what happens when the justices themselves are the parties?
Maybe the justices will work something out when they hold their first administrative meeting of the year on Jan. 23. Maybe the feud will simmer and bubble over in future rulings in unrelated cases. Or maybe, as columnist John Brummett suggested last week, they’ll settle it by wrasslin’.