Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sovereign Immunity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Academic argues for eliminating state sovereign immunity for constitutional‑rights claims; resolution presented as a shell
Summary
A professor testified in his individual capacity in favor of a proposed amendment (filed as SJR 9 shell) to eliminate sovereign immunity for constitutional‑rights claims and to let the legislature waive immunity for other claims. He argued the change would improve accountability and allow citizens to sue the state in court rather than rely on the
Get email alerts on the Sovereign Immunity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
A law professor spoke in favor of SJR 9, a shell resolution the presenter described as intended to eliminate sovereign immunity for constitutional‑rights claims and to permit the General Assembly to waive sovereign immunity for other claims.
The professor said sovereign immunity is a vestige of monarchy and argued that modern constitutional democracies should permit suits against the state in ordinary courts when government actors violate rights or contracts. He described the current process—reliance on a claims commission and ultimately legislative relief—as contrary to the principle that a person should not be a judge in their own case, and he said the proposed change would bring Arkansas closer to other jurisdictions that have limited immunity.
He dismissed two common objections: that removing immunity would produce excessive litigation or saddle taxpayers with government wrongdoing. He said litigation is the mechanism to enforce rights and that exposing the state to liability creates incentives to reduce official wrongdoing. The professor noted the U.K. abolished sovereign immunity in 1947 and that several U.S. states have limited immunity.
Committee members asked constitutional and historical questions about the origin of courts and constitutions; the professor agreed the topic raises complex legal history issues. No vote or detailed statutory text was presented; the committee was told the resolution is currently a shell and that more drafting would follow if the item advanced.
