In Re Order of Chief Justice Karen R. Baker

2025 Ark. 4
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedJanuary 8, 2025
StatusPublished

This text of 2025 Ark. 4 (In Re Order of Chief Justice Karen R. Baker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Order of Chief Justice Karen R. Baker, 2025 Ark. 4 (Ark. 2025).

Opinion

Cite as 2025 Ark. 4 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS Opinion Delivered: January 8, 2025 ORDER OF CHIEF JUSTICE KAREN R. BAKER

KAREN R. BAKER, Chief Justice

Pursuant to Amendment 80 of the Arkansas Constitution, the Chief Justice is selected

in the same manner as the other justices on the court—the people of Arkansas get to decide.

See Ark. Const. amend. 80, § 2(A)-(B). The associate justices, separately or altogether,

cannot overrule the Chief Justice in administering the functions of the court. Stated

differently, the associate justices cannot overtake the constitutional duties of the Chief

Justice, an elected position, simply because there are more of them. Notwithstanding the

will of the people in selecting me to serve in this position, two of my opponents in the

Chief Justice race that remain on the court are now attempting to take what the people

would not give them by force. However, “Regnat Populus—The People Rule—is the

motto of Arkansas. It should ever remain inviolate.” Republican Party of Ark. v. State ex rel.

Hall, 240 Ark. 545, 549, 400 S.W.2d 660, 662 (1966). Thus, I intend to do the job that the

people elected me to do. I. Constitutional Authority

When Arkansas became a state in 1836, the supreme court was composed of three

judges, one of whom would serve as the Chief Justice. See Ark. Const. of 1836, art. 6, § 2.

Over time, the number of justices on the court was increased from three to five, and then

from five to seven. Despite the changes to the composition of the court throughout the

years, the constant has been that the Chief Justice has remained at the helm.

Amendment 80 provides that, “[t]he Supreme Court shall exercise general

superintending control over all courts of the state and may temporarily assign judges, with

their consent, to courts or divisions other than that for which they were elected or

appointed. These functions shall be administered by the Chief Justice.” Ark. Const. amend. 80, §

4. (Emphasis added). We have long held that language of a constitutional provision that is

plain and unambiguous must be given its obvious and common meaning. See, e.g., Zook v.

Martin, 2018 Ark. 293, 4, 557 S.W.3d 880, 883. As the plain meaning of Amendment 80,

section 4 makes clear through the use of the plural word “functions”, the Chief Justice is

called to administer more than one function of the court. More specifically, through the use

of the conjunctive word “and”, this language demonstrates that the Constitution requires

the Chief Justice to administer two functions—(1) the superintending control over all courts

of the state, and (2) the temporary assignment of judges. In accordance with the common

meaning of the word, to “administer” means “to control the operation or arrangement of

something.” Administer, Cambridge Dictionary,

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/administer (last visited Jan. 7,

2025). Further, we have interpreted the word “shall” to mean mandatory and require

2 mandatory compliance. Smith v. Wright, 2015 Ark. 189, 13, 461 S.W.3d 687, 695.

Accordingly, along with my predecessors, I reject any suggestion that the Chief Justice’s

authority is limited to the assignment of special judges and justices. Amendment 80 does not

limit the Chief Justice’s authority in such a way, nor was it intended to. Rather, it is my

constitutional duty to the people of Arkansas to administer the functions of the court and I

will not yield any power that was bestowed upon any Chief Justice before me.

Despite the fact that the Chief Justice retains the sole authority to administer the

functions of the court pursuant to the Constitution, at times, I may delegate certain authority

to the associate justices individually or as a whole or seek input on administrative matters. I

understand that each of the associate justices is a valuable public servant that is vital in

maintaining the integrity of the judiciary, and therefore, I appreciate and welcome such

input on those discretionary matters. However, a majority vote cannot be used in an attempt

to usurp the sole authority of the Chief Justice on administrative matters. This truth, as it

has long been understood, was articulated in an order entered by former Chief Justice Kemp

upon taking office in 2017 when he was faced with challenges much like those that have

manifested in response to me assuming the position of Chief Justice. Kemp explained that

his order was in response to “a motion made by Associate Justice Courtney Goodson, who

[sought] to establish a new rule whereby the Supreme Court of Arkansas would exercise

control over administrative matters by a 4-person majority vote.” (Emphasis added). In

recognizing that this motion, if successful, would improperly strip the Chief Justice of his

constitutional authority over administrative matters for the first time since the inception of

our court, Kemp held as follows:

3 This motion can only be understood as an effort to impair the constitutional authority of the Chief Justice. This proposed rule, if implemented, would result in unnecessary delays that impede the administration of justice. Further, this scheme sends a message of conflict and uncertainty to the Arkansas Judiciary.

Under my constitutional authority and duty as Chief Justice as set forth in Amendment 80 of the Arkansas Constitution, and as chairperson of all conferences and meetings of the court, I will not recognize a motion that attempts to (a) override, change, or otherwise impair the administrative authority of the Chief Justice, (b) direct the Chief Justice in his exercise of administrative authority, or (c) establish or exercise any alleged authority of associate justices over administrative matters. Such a motion usurps the constitutional authority of the Chief Justice granted by the Arkansas Constitution. I will not recognize a second to the motion. I object to any vote on any motion made by an associate justice on these administrative matters. I conclude that the efficient administration of the judiciary requires the Chief Justice to exercise authority unencumbered by controversy that comes with seven court members seeking to administer the court by a majority vote.

I hereby rule that a vote on such motion by the associate justices on administrative matters or administrative authority is invalid, null, and void. If, over my objection, the associate justices vote on such matters, then, as Chief Justice, I will enter an order contravening that vote and will declare it invalid, null, and void.

See Appendix 1.

In response to this order, the members of the court, most of whom remain on the

court today, recognized Kemp’s order as an order of the Chief Justice and accepted his

authority over administrative matters accordingly. In recognition of the proper function of

the court, there were no attempts to overthrow the Chief Justice, and the members of that

court conducted themselves in a professional manner. The circumstances underlying Kemp’s

order were similar to those that necessitate the present order. However, here, not only have

five associate justices made and seconded numerous motions regarding administrative

matters over my objection, they have purported to enter per curiam opinions creating new

4 rules and making appointments to a commission over my objection. Additionally, five

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Republican Party v. State Ex Rel. Hall
400 S.W.2d 660 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1966)
Smith v. Wright
2015 Ark. 189 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2015)
Zook v. Martin
557 S.W.3d 880 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2025 Ark. 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-order-of-chief-justice-karen-r-baker-ark-2025.