The Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the Arkansas Department of Education and twelve other state officials in a constitutional challenge to the state's Educational Freedom Account program under the LEARNS Act. The December 11, 2025 ruling in *Arkansas Department of Education v. Faulkenberry* effectively upheld a Pulaski County Circuit Court decision that allowed the lawsuit to proceed.
The case centers on a lawsuit filed by Gwen Faulkenberry, Special Sanders, Anika Whitfield, and Kimberly Crutchfield challenging the constitutionality of the Educational Freedom Account program created under Arkansas's LEARNS Act. The plaintiffs argue the program violates Article 14 of the Arkansas Constitution.
The thirteen state defendants include Arkansas Department of Education Secretary Jacob Oliva, Arkansas State Board of Education Chairwoman Dr. Sarah Moore, Vice-Chair Kathy McFetridge-Rollins, and board members Lisa Hunter, Jeff Wood, Randy Henderson, Adrienne Woods, Ken Bragg, and Leigh S. Keener. Also named are the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration and its Secretary Jim Hudson.
The state officials had sought dismissal of the lawsuit on sovereign immunity grounds, arguing that the state cannot be sued without its consent. When the Pulaski County Circuit Court denied their motion to dismiss, the state appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court seeking reversal and dismissal of the underlying claims.
Associate Justice Shawn A. Womack wrote the opinion dismissing the appeal. The court held that sovereign immunity does not apply because the plaintiffs' claims constitute illegal-exaction claims against the state. Under Arkansas law, illegal-exaction claims challenge the state's authority to collect or spend money in violation of the constitution, and sovereign immunity does not bar such challenges.
The court explained that because sovereign immunity does not apply to illegal-exaction claims, there was no right to an interlocutory appeal under Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure – Civil 2(a)(10). This rule allows immediate appeals from orders denying sovereign immunity defenses, but only when sovereign immunity actually applies to the underlying claims.
The Educational Freedom Account program, established under the LEARNS Act, provides state funding for private school tuition and other educational expenses for qualifying families. The program has been a contentious issue in Arkansas education policy, with supporters arguing it provides school choice options and critics contending it diverts public funds from traditional public schools.
The plaintiffs' constitutional challenge appears to focus on Article 14 of the Arkansas Constitution, which contains provisions regarding public education and the use of public funds. While the court's opinion does not detail the specific constitutional arguments, illegal-exaction claims typically allege that government spending violates constitutional restrictions on the use of public money.
The Supreme Court's dismissal means the case will return to Pulaski County Circuit Court for further proceedings on the merits of the constitutional challenge. The state defendants will need to respond to the lawsuit's substantive claims rather than seeking dismissal on immunity grounds.
Circuit Judge Morgan E. Welch is presiding over the original case in the Sixteenth Division of Pulaski County Circuit Court. The case was filed on June 7, 2024, and assigned case number 60CV-24-3911.
The ruling represents a procedural victory for the challengers of the LEARNS Act's voucher program. By allowing the case to proceed without the shield of sovereign immunity, the Arkansas Supreme Court has cleared the way for a full examination of whether the Educational Freedom Account program complies with the state constitution's education and public funding provisions.
The case could have implications for school choice programs across Arkansas and potentially other states with similar constitutional provisions. If the plaintiffs ultimately prevail on the merits, it could restrict or eliminate the state's ability to fund private school tuition through public money.
The state defendants may still raise other defenses to the constitutional claims as the case proceeds in circuit court. However, they will no longer be able to rely on sovereign immunity as grounds for dismissal.
The Arkansas LEARNS Act was a comprehensive education reform package that included various provisions beyond the Educational Freedom Account program. The constitutional challenge appears focused specifically on the voucher component rather than the entire legislative package.
The next phase of litigation will likely involve briefing and potentially trial on whether the Educational Freedom Account program violates Article 14 or other provisions of the Arkansas Constitution. The circuit court will need to examine both the specific constitutional language and the program's structure to determine whether public funding of private education is permissible under state law.