Ark. State Plant Bd. v. McCarty

Summary

The Arkansas Supreme Court addressed an appeal concerning the Arkansas State Plant Board’s rule prohibiting in-crop application of dicamba herbicides after April 15, 2018. It dismissed the Board’s direct appeal as moot because a later rule replaced the challenged cutoff date, and dismissed part of the Farmers’ cross-appeal as moot. The court reversed the dismissal of the Farmers’ constitutional challenge to the statutory process for appointing Plant Board members, holding that sovereign immunity did not bar claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged unconstitutional conduct.

Holdings

1. The Board's direct appeal was moot because the new rule permitting in-crop dicamba use through May 25 eliminated the controversy concerning the April cutoff.
2. The Farmers' cross-appeal was moot insofar as it challenged the denial of their rulemaking petition and alleged improper communications or procedural irregularities associated with that denial.
3. Sovereign immunity did not bar the Farmers' constitutional challenge alleging that the statutory process for appointing Board members was unconstitutional because the Farmers sought only declaratory and injunctive relief and alleged an illegal or unconstitutional act.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Board's appeal from the circuit court's order invalidating the April 2018 dicamba cutoff rule was moot after a new rule repealed that cutoff.
2. Whether the Farmers' administrative challenges to the denial of their rulemaking petition and alleged procedural irregularities were moot.
3. Whether sovereign immunity barred the Farmers' constitutional challenge to the statutory appointment of Plant Board members when they sought only declaratory and injunctive relief and alleged an unconstitutional act.

Disposition

other