In an opinion delivered April 23, 2026, by Associate Justice Shawn A. Womack, the court described the question as a narrow one: "The narrow issue in this interlocutory appeal is whether the Garland County District Court is entitled to sovereign immunity." The majority affirmed the circuit court's denial of dismissal as to the illegal-exaction and federal due-process claims, reversed and dismissed the Arkansas Civil Rights Act claim, and remanded the case "for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."
John Mercer pled no contest in September 2018 to two DWI charges filed earlier that year in the Garland County District Court. The court imposed fines, ordered alcohol-education programming, and placed Mercer on at least six months of probation, requiring him to pay a $25 monthly probation fee and submit to random drug and alcohol testing. Mercer made fee payments through 2019 before suing in May 2020 on behalf of himself and similarly situated defendants, alleging that Arkansas law does not authorize probation as a sentence for DWI offenders.
On the illegal-exaction claim, the court held that Article 16, Section 13 of the Arkansas Constitution — which provides that "[a]ny citizen . . . may initiate suit . . . against the enforcement of any illegal exactions whatever" — overrides the sovereign-immunity bar of Article 5, Section 20. The court reasoned: "We do not read constitutional provisions in isolation. We read the Constitution as a harmonious whole." When the constitution itself authorizes a suit, the court explained, "article 5, section 20 yields to that authorization." The majority rejected the district court's argument that the illegal-exaction clause reaches only formal taxes, noting it "is enough that Mercer alleges a compulsory governmental charge imposed without legal authority."
The opinion threads three Arkansas Code provisions. Section 5-4-301(a)(1)(D) bars a court from placing "a defendant on probation" for DWI; Section 5-4-322(b)(1) excludes DWI cases from the general probation-fee statute; and Section 5-65-108(b) permits a narrower form of "probationary supervision" solely to monitor compliance with lawful sentencing orders, along with a "reasonable fee" for that limited purpose. Citing the Court of Appeals' decision in Conic v. State, the majority observed that the sentencing code provisions "unambiguously prohibit probation for DWI offenders" while permitting limited compliance monitoring. Whether the supervision Mercer received crossed the line into punishment, the court said, "requires factual development and statutory application to a developed record."
The majority also held that Article 5, Section 20 cannot categorically slam the courthouse door on Mercer's federal due-process claim. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Haywood v. Drown and the Supremacy Clause, the court said sovereign immunity "does not permit a state to use its own law to categorically foreclose federal causes of action in its courts." The opinion stressed it was deciding only a threshold question: "This interlocutory appeal presents only the narrow question whether article 5, section 20 independently bars Mercer's federal due-process claim. It does not."
Mercer's Arkansas Civil Rights Act claim, however, fell on the other side of the line. The court held that ACRA claims are "not expressly authorized by the Arkansas Constitution as suits against the State." Absent such authorization, "article 5, section 20 controls." The court reversed the circuit court and dismissed that count.
Chief Justice Karen R. Baker and Justice Courtney Rae Hudson concurred in part and dissented in part. Hudson would have allowed the state ACRA claim to proceed alongside the federal one, citing the court's "long recognized" exception to sovereign immunity for ultra vires conduct by state officials. Baker, by contrast, would have dismissed the state claims on sovereign-immunity grounds. Justice Nicholas J. Bronni dissented in full, joined by Justices Wood and Hiland. Bronni argued the dispute does not fit the illegal-exaction framework: "But this case isn't about an illegal exaction." Mercer, he wrote, "challenges the punishment he received for a crime."
Jenna Adams represents the appellant Garland County District Court. Chris W. Burks, and Michael Kiel Kaiser of Lassiter & Cassinelli, represent the appellee John Mercer.