Arkansas Supreme Court (Courtesy Photo)
Members of the Arkansas Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a case filed by Justice Courtney Hudson seeking to block the release of her emails from a public records request and have referred her for disciplinary investigation.
In an unsigned per curiam opinion issued Tuesday, the state’s high court vacated a preliminary injunction granted by Pulaski County Circuit Judge Patricia James on Monday and dismissed the underlying complaint with prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. “With prejudice” means the case cannot be refiled.
Hudson and Justice Karen Baker dissented. The opinion said written opinions would follow, but none had been filed as of Tuesday afternoon.
The state’s high court referred Hudson to the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission for investigation because the case implicates potential Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct and Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct violations, “particularly the flagrant breaches of confidentiality and the public trust,” the opinion said.
The high court also referred Justin Zachary of Denton, Zachary & Norwood PLLC to the Office of Professional Conduct for investigation.
Hudson_v._Admin._Office_of_the_Courts
The case stems from a Freedom of Information Act request made last month by Arkansas Business Senior Editor Mark Friedman to the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Office of Professional Conduct that requested all communications after Jan. 1, 2023 between former OPC director Lisa Ballard and several individuals, including Hudson.
Ballard was one of three employees who left the OPC in short succession earlier this year. Ballard’s personnel file, which was obtained by the Advocate in May through a Freedom of Information Act request, did not include a letter of resignation or list a reason for termination.
Arkansas Business reported Tuesday that its lawyer John Tull said he anticipates the requested documents will be provided following Tuesday’s opinion.
“We’re grateful that the Supreme Court has affirmed what we’ve long felt, that these documents should be released, and we look forward to receiving them and continuing on with our reporting,” Arkansas Business Editor Hunter Field said.
Hudson filed a complaint in Pulaski County Circuit Court on Sept. 6 arguing that she is the custodian of the emails requested by Friedman under the FOIA’s definition and has administrative control over the requested records, not the Administrative Office of the Courts. James agreed and granted a temporary injunction the same day.
Judge extends temporary injunction in Arkansas Supreme Court justice’s public records case
According to Hudson’s complaint, OPC acting director Charlene Fleetwood intended to respond to Friedman that the requested records are exempt from FOIA, but five of Hudson’s fellow justices overruled Fleetwood and said any responsive records should be released.
Because OPC is governed by the Arkansas Supreme Court, the justices held a confidential vote on an administrative matter pertaining to the release of emails, pursuant to the FOIA request, from Ballard to Hudson, according to Tuesday’s opinion. The vote didn’t concern any communications from Hudson to any party because those are exempt from FOIA under state law, justices wrote.
“As revealed in the circuit court pleadings, five justices voted to authorize Fleetwood to release the emails from Ballard to Justice Hudson,” the opinion states.
James agreed to continue blocking the release of emails following a hearing on Sept. 18. She issued a preliminary injunction on Monday, which the Arkansas Supreme Court promptly vacated on Tuesday.
The pleadings and exhibits contained in the case information should have alerted the circuit court that this matter involved an internal administrative issue over which the circuit court has no jurisdiction, according to Tuesday’s opinion. Allowing the circuit court to stay enforcement of the high court’s decisions “would usurp the supreme court’s authority guaranteed by the Arkansas Constitution.”
“It would also allow any dissenting justice to halt the administration of the supreme court by seeking additional review whenever he or she disagrees with an internal court decision,” the order states. “This specific action undermines the confidence in the judiciary and subverts the efficient and effective administration of justice.”
The unique set of circumstances in this case permits the high court to exercise its “extraordinary power of superintending control,” pursuant to Amendment 80 to the state constitution, according to the opinion.
“Superintending control is an extraordinary power that is hampered by no specific rules or means,” the complaint states. “By virtue of the jurisdiction, the court may invent, frame, and formulate new and additional means, writs, and processes.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX