Associate Justice Karen R. Baker wrote a dissent on Sept. 27, 2024, saying the Arkansas Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction when it vacated a circuit court's order granting preliminary injunctive relief and dismissed with prejudice the civil action filed by Courtney Rae Hudson against the Arkansas Administrative Office of the Courts and others.

Baker said the court's majority improperly invoked its "general superintending control" under Amendment 80, section 4 of the Arkansas Constitution to intervene in ongoing circuit-court litigation. "There was no appeal lodged in this court that would invoke our appellate jurisdiction," she wrote, and she cited precedent that the court's jurisdiction is appellate in nature except where specific law authorizes original actions.

The dissent argued the majority misapplied the Freedom of Information Act exemption in Arkansas Code Annotated section 25-19-105(b)(7). Baker wrote that the statute shields "unpublished memoranda, working papers, and correspondence of . . . Supreme Court Justices," and she said the plain-language definition of "correspondence" would include emails to or from Justice Courtney Rae Hudson. "Thus, the statutory exemption . . . would necessarily encompass any emails to or from Justice Hudson," she wrote.

Baker described procedural and timing concerns about how the per curiam opinion was circulated and issued. She wrote that the per curiam was circulated to the court with about 23 minutes for review and that the opinion was handed down on a Tuesday rather than the court's customary Thursday practice; she also wrote that subpoenas in the underlying civil action had been issued for every participating member of the court on Sept. 18. Baker characterized those circumstances as grounds for recusal and said the majority should have held the opinion for fuller consideration.

The dissent also said, based on pleadings in the circuit court as recounted by Baker, that five justices voted to authorize Acting Director Charlene Fleetwood to release emails from an individual identified as Ballard to Justice Hudson. Baker said the majority then characterized the matter as an "administrative" issue in a way that insulated its conduct and prevented a litigant from having a day in court.

Baker criticized what she called the "weaponiz[ation]" of the Office of Professional Conduct, writing that the majority referred a member of the Arkansas bar for investigation in connection with zealous representation of a client. She wrote that such referrals could chill litigation and said she would encourage continued litigation despite that concern.

As remedies and remedies-related observations, Baker said the court should publish a schedule of its administrative meetings and invite public attendance. She concluded by referring the majority to the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission for investigation and wrote, "Accordingly, I dissent."