LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — The Arkansas Supreme Court is embroiled in a public dispute just days following the swearing-in of Chief Justice Karen Baker, regarding who holds the power to terminate high-ranking court officials.
On Wednesday, Chief Justice Baker annulled an order that a majority of the seven-member court had issued the previous week, which blocked her attempts to dismiss certain top officials. Since taking office on January 1, Baker has accused the majority, consisting of five justices, of overstepping their authority. “The constitutional office of the Chief Justice is an elected position for a reason,” Baker asserted. “I am the people’s choice for Chief Justice—not any of the associate justices, whether they act collectively or individually.”
In response, the majority justices declared the order issued by Baker as lacking legal effect, essentially viewing it as a mere dissent. “We respect our colleague’s right to issue a dissenting opinion; however, it signifies no legal impact beyond that,” the majority stated in a written declaration. Just a week prior, this conservative faction within the court had reinstated the previous stipulation that the Chief Justice needs support from at least four members of the court for any hiring or firing decisions regarding the director of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and other officials, including the police chief of the court. Notably, Baker and Justice Courtney Goodson opted out of participating in that decision.
Baker highlighted that this recent action contradicted a directive from her predecessor, former Chief Justice Dan Kemp, established in 2017, which granted the Chief Justice the authority to nominate the AOC’s director, who is expected to serve at the discretion of the court. Furthermore, she raised questions on the legality surrounding an eight-year contract that the current AOC Director Marty Sullivan had secured with the court, claiming it was inappropriate for him to enter such an agreement without resigning from his role.
While Baker’s initial order did not clarify her reasons for wanting to dismiss Sullivan or the other officials, it indicates a broader struggle within the court regarding the appointment powers for the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission. This commission is responsible for investigating and disciplining judges. Recently, the court’s majority made new appointments to this commission, asserting that Baker attempted to fill three positions without the court’s consensus. In her counter order, Baker expressed her concerns regarding one reappointed member, alleging that he holds bias against her, though she did not provide further details on this claim.
Despite the court’s official stance being nonpartisan, it is notable that Republican-aligned justices occupy five of the seven available seats. Baker secured her position by defeating incumbent Justice Rhonda Wood in a runoff election last November, following a primary that also included Justice Barbara Webb. In her written remarks, Baker expressed her frustration with the situation: “Despite the will of the people selecting me for this role, my two opponents from the Chief Justice race who remain on the court are now attempting to claim what the public would not concede to them through coercive means.”
Baker and Wood previously found themselves on opposing sides of a significant ruling last year, which blocked a measure advocating for abortion rights from appearing on the ballot. Wood authored the majority opinion that upheld the decision of election officials to reject petitions for this measure, while Baker drafted a strong dissent that criticized the court’s majority ruling.
