Courts notebook

State's begging law set for U.S. hearing

As many Arkansans are preparing next week for Thanksgiving celebrations, a federal judge in Little Rock will consider whether police can enforce a law that prohibits begging for money, food or other charity.

U.S. District Judge Billy Roy Wilson will hear arguments at 9 a.m. Tuesday on a request for a preliminary injunction to stop the enforcement of Arkansas Code 5-71-213(a)(3), which outlaws begging at any place and time, and which the American Civil Liberties Union says criminalizes speech protected by the First Amendment and is unconstitutionally broad.

Wilson also will hear the state's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which was filed Oct. 24 on behalf of a disabled veteran, Michael Andrew Rodgers of Garland County, and a homeless man, Glynn Dilbeck. Assistant Attorney General Colin Jorgensen wants Wilson to defer to the Arkansas Supreme Court to interpret the statute.

Jorgensen says Rodgers and Dilbeck lack legal standing to pursue the case because they aren't currently being prosecuted. He also contends the law isn't vague for its failure to define the term "begging," because people of "ordinary intelligence" understand the term.

Although Rodgers was convicted in 2015 in Garland County District Court of violating the law, the conviction was overturned and the law declared unconstitutional on appeal to Garland County Circuit Court. But because the prosecution didn't appeal the circuit court decision, the state's appellate courts didn't get to decide the constitutionality of the law, Jorgensen argues. In Dilbeck's case, he said, the prosecutor simply dropped the charge.

Both plaintiffs said they fear new criminal charges or harassment if they carry out their desire to continue begging.

The sole defendant named in the suit is Col. Bill Bryant, director of the Arkansas State Police, which the lawsuit says is the agency that has made the most arrests and issued most of the citations under the law.

'Pot'-law backers drop federal suit

It's official. A federal lawsuit aimed at forcing election officials across the state to give out correct information to voters about two marijuana legalization proposals, and requesting an official means of allowing confused voters to correct their already cast ballots, has been dismissed.

The lawsuit was filed Nov. 2, six days before the general election. In it, three Arkansans complained that the dissemination of conflicting information after the Arkansas Supreme Court invalidated one proposal after early voting had begun left many voters unsure which votes would be counted and, accordingly, how they should vote on the competing proposals.

The plaintiffs sought a post-election remedy for correcting their votes if necessary.

U.S. District Judge James Moody Jr. said in a Nov. 4 hearing, however, that there was no order he could issue to resolve the problem, especially so close to Election Day.

As it turned out, 53 percent of voters approved the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment, the only marijuana issue for which votes were counted, and which the lawsuit contended was in danger of not passing as a result of the confusion.

So on Nov. 10, plaintiffs' attorney Jack Wagoner of Little Rock said the issues were moot and asked to drop the case. Moody did just that on Monday.

National injunction halts Arkansas case

A nationwide permanent injunction issued Wednesday in the Northern District of Texas declares a proposed new labor exemption rule unlawful. A notice of the injunction was also filed in a related case pending before U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker in Little Rock.

In April, Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton led a 10-state coalition in filing friend-of-the-court briefs to intervene in the Texas case on behalf of state and federal industry groups against the U.S. Department of Labor. The briefs challenged the department's proposed expanded financial disclosure rules targeting anti-union activities as unconstitutional.

On June 27, U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings of Lubbock, Texas, granted a preliminary injunction stopping the department's Persuader Advice Exemption Rule from taking effect. The rule would have forced disclosure of confidential information, communication and relationships between small businesses and their outside counsel in labor relations matters.

Rutledge said in a news release Wednesday that in making the injunction permanent, Cummings' ruling "lifts a weight off small businesses in Arkansas and across the country. Economic development and job growth are protected as employers will not be required to disclose confidential advice from attorneys needed to lawfully and appropriately respond to certain issues."

The nationwide injunction is expected to moot the issues in the Little Rock case.

Metro on 11/19/2016

Upcoming Events