To Amend The Rules Of The Supreme Court And Court Of Appeals Of The State Of Arkansas; And To Amend A Rule Of The Supreme Court And Court Of Appeals Under The Authority Granted By The Arkansas Constitution.
Summary
HB1832 revises Arkansas appellate procedure by giving the Court of Appeals exclusive original jurisdiction over facial constitutional challenges. Under the bill, a party that wants a law, code provision, or administrative rule declared unconstitutional in all applications must file that challenge initially in the Court of Appeals, rather than in circuit court or the Supreme Court. The bill also states that the Court of Appeals’ decision in such cases may be appealed to the Supreme Court.
The measure further amends Supreme Court and Court of Appeals rules governing appellate jurisdiction, transfer, certification, petitions for review, and improper filing. It preserves the Supreme Court’s authority over certain categories of cases, including constitutional interpretation, death penalty and life imprisonment criminal appeals, election matters, attorney and judge discipline, and other cases required by law. It also clarifies that misfiled cases should be transferred rather than dismissed, and it retains the rule that criminal and post-conviction appellants in the Court of Appeals are deemed to have exhausted state remedies once the claim has been presented and relief denied. The act takes effect November 1, 2025.
Impact
HB1832 changes Arkansas law by amending both court rules and Arkansas Code § 16-13-201 to shift original jurisdiction for facial constitutional challenges to the Court of Appeals. That affects litigants challenging statutes, administrative rules, or regulations on their face, as well as the circuit courts, which would no longer have original jurisdiction over those claims. It also formalizes related appellate procedures for filing, transfer, review, and workload allocation between the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have received generally favorable legislative support, passing the House 75-19 and the Senate 26-7. The vote margins suggest broad approval for the jurisdictional restructuring, with no committee transcript available to show detailed debate. Overall, the recorded history indicates the bill was viewed as a procedural court-organization measure rather than a highly controversial policy change.
Contention
The main point of contention is the reallocation of authority between Arkansas courts, especially the decision to give the Court of Appeals exclusive original jurisdiction over facial constitutional challenges. That change could be seen as affecting where major constitutional disputes begin and how quickly they reach the Supreme Court. Another possible concern is whether the General Assembly is appropriately using its constitutional authority to amend court rules and alter jurisdictional lines, though the bill itself cites Amendment 80 as the basis for doing so.