Wilson v. Walther

Summary

The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed an illegal-exaction suit challenging 2015 appropriations from the General Improvement Fund to planning and development districts. The court held that the taxpayer had standing and that the claims were not moot, and it concluded that the appropriations violated article 5, section 29 of the Arkansas Constitution because their purposes were not distinctly stated. The court reversed and remanded on direct appeal and affirmed on the cross-appeal.

Holdings

1. A taxpayer has standing to challenge the allegedly illegal expenditure of public funds when the taxpayer is a citizen and has contributed tax money to the general treasury; the taxpayer need not trace an individual tax payment to the challenged expenditure or show a significant tax contribution.
2. The action was not moot because Central Arkansas Planning and Development District still possessed unexpended challenged funds, and taxpayers could obtain repayment of funds still in its possession if the appropriations were unconstitutional. Even if the claims against the State defendants were otherwise moot, the substantial-public-interest exception justified review.
3. An appropriation stating that funds are for grants to planning and development districts does not distinctly state the purpose of the appropriation as required by article 5, section 29 of the Arkansas Constitution. The challenged acts were therefore facially unconstitutional.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Wilson had taxpayer standing to bring a public-funds illegal-exaction action concerning General Improvement Fund appropriations.
2. Whether the action was moot because the appropriated funds had been disbursed to Central Arkansas Planning and Development District before the complaint was filed.
3. Whether the challenged appropriations violated article 5, section 29 of the Arkansas Constitution because their stated purpose, grants to planning and development districts, did not distinctly state how the money would be used.
4. Whether the challenged appropriations violated amendment fourteen's prohibition on special or local legislation.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded