AN ACT FOR THE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2026-2027 FISCAL YEAR.
SB55 is an annual appropriation bill for the Arkansas Supreme Court for fiscal year 2026-2027. It authorizes funding for the Court’s regular operations, including salaries for up to 52 employees, extra help positions, and a range of operating expenses such as travel, professional fees, capital outlay, court-appointed attorneys, judicial education, records maintenance technology, Arkansas Reports, commissions and committees, and special justices. The bill also separately sets staffing and funding for the Supreme Court Bar of Arkansas, including its related offices and programs.
The measure is primarily a budget and personnel authorization bill rather than a policy change. It appropriates $7,666,202 for Supreme Court operations from the State Central Services Fund and $5,733,581 for the Supreme Court Bar of Arkansas from cash funds, while establishing maximum employee counts and salary classifications for both entities. It also includes standard fiscal compliance language requiring adherence to state procurement, accounting, budgetary, and salary laws, and contains an emergency clause making it effective July 1, 2026.
SB55 updates Arkansas law for the 2026-2027 fiscal year by providing the legal authority for the Arkansas Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Bar of Arkansas to spend specified funds and maintain authorized staffing levels. It affects state appropriations, employee classifications, and spending limits for court operations, but does not substantively alter judicial procedure or court jurisdiction. The bill also reinforces compliance with existing fiscal control statutes and Department of Finance and Administration rules.
The available record suggests the bill was routine and noncontroversial. There are no committee transcripts or recorded votes showing opposition, debate, or amendments, and the bill was ultimately enacted as Act 137. The absence of recorded contention, combined with its nature as a standard appropriations measure, indicates general institutional support and a largely procedural consensus around funding the Supreme Court for the upcoming fiscal year.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. Because there are no committee transcripts or vote details, it is not possible to identify named opponents, disputed funding items, or concerns raised during consideration. Any potential issues would likely have centered on budget levels, staffing authorizations, or allocations for court-related programs, but the record provided does not show active disagreement.