To better communicate with the public, press, and interested parties, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin publishes a monthly digest of recently issued opinions. This month’s digest includes all opinions issued during August 2025.
Clicking on the opinion numbers in this digest will take you to the full opinion.
OPINION 2025-010
Requested by State Representative Stephen Meeks
Question 1: Hypothetically speaking, in the event of the collapse of a financial institution, are the assets of Arkansas citizens at risk of being seized or confiscated, either in whole or part, by the collapsed financial institution or an appointed receiver to pay off the creditors of the collapsed institution?
Question 2: Are Arkansas citizens at risk of losing all or part of their life savings or retirement savings should a failed financial institution have to pay its creditors?
Question 3: Similarly, would the state’s investments or those held in our various retirement systems be subject to having assets seized by the failed financial institution to pay the financial institution’s debts?
Question 4: Would the participants in our retirement systems face a potential reduction in benefits due to the loss, or would the taxpayers of the state be liable for the cost of the loss?
Question 5: Would legislation be appropriate to remove certain exemptions to ensure Arkansas citizens have first right of and to their property and investments?
Brief Response: While an entitlement holder of a financial asset could lose his or her property interest to a creditor under the Arkansas Uniform Commercial Code (Arkansas UCC) in limited circumstances, other areas of law, such as contract law and federal law, generally control whether these individuals will lose all or part of their investments held by an insolvent financial institution. Under the hypothetical presented, federal law would typically control the creditor process in lieu of the Arkansas UCC. But because an analysis of federal law is generally outside the scope of an Attorney General opinion, I will not opine on whether specific federal law applies here.
OPINION 2025-012
Requested by State Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Question: If a public school district is taken under state control, and the State Board of Education suspended or removed the public school district’s board of directors and has assumed the school board’s authority, is that public school district under state control considered a state entity for the length of time that it is controlled by the State Board of Education which removed the public school district’s board of directors and assumed the school board’s authority, powers, and duties?
Brief Response: Because you have provided no additional background information for your question, I can only guess as to the context in which a school district might be considered a state entity. While a school district under state control would likely not be considered a state entity for certain purposes discussed in the opinion, it might be deemed an arm of the state for sovereign immunity purposes.
OPINION 2025-022
Requested by Ms. Sonia Fonticiella, Prosecuting Attorney
Question: Can a 501(C)(3) nonprofit organization donate college football tickets as door prizes at a fundraising event without infringing Arkansas law?
Brief Response: Under the facts you have provided, the answer to your question depends on whether someone must pay or give other consideration specifically to have a chance to win the prize.
OPINION 2025-038
Requested by State Senator Mark Johnson
Question 1: Is A.C.A. § 5-71-213(a)(3) constitutional?
Brief Response: Arkansas Code § 5-71-213(a)(3), as amended in 2023, is presumed constitutional and will likely survive First Amendment challenges.
Question 2: Are law enforcement officers acting within their legal authority under A.C.A. § 5-71-213 when they ticket individuals who are present and remain on a sidewalk, in a roadway, or on a public right-of-way?
Brief Response: Yes, a certified law enforcement officer is authorized, according to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.2(a), to issue a citation to any person they have reasonable cause to believe has violated A.C.A. § 5-71-213(a)(3).
OPINION 2025-039
Requested by State Representative Denise Garner
Question 1: Does a hold-harmless agreement between a patient (or their legal counsel) and an insurer comply with Arkansas law, specifically the mandates of the Arkansas Medical Lien Act?
Brief Response: No, for reasons explained in the opinion, such a hold-harmless agreement does not satisfy the Arkansas Medical, Nursing, Hospital, and Ambulance Lien Act.
Question 2: What is the purpose of a medical lien if it can simply be invalidated or ignored by a hold-harmless agreement or other agreements between a patient and their insurer?
Brief Response: As explained in response to Question 1, medical liens cannot be invalidated or ignored through a hold-harmless agreement. The purpose of medical liens, which is to encourage treatment, remains.
OPINION 2025-042
Requested by State Representative Zachary Gramlich
Question: Is a recent Northern District of Texas decision in Hobby Distillers Association v. Alcohol & Tobacco Tax & Trade Bureau—which generally held that a federal ban on in-home stills was unconstitutional—“effective and applicable” to the Arkansas statutes concerning stills and their parts? Could legislation on this topic help alleviate the burden on citizens?
Brief Response: While the Hobby Distillers Association v. Alcohol & Tobacco Tax & Trade Bureau decision declared federal provisions regarding distilling spirits unconstitutional and permanently enjoined the federal government from enforcing that law against plaintiffs, it does not impact Arkansas law concerning stills and their parts.
OPINION 2025-072
Requested by Mr. Jimmie Cavin
Question: Is the custodian’s decision to release the requested records with redactions consistent with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)?
Brief Response: The records provided for my review are neither “personnel records” nor “employee-evaluation or job-performance records.” Thus, I lack the authority under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) to opine on whether the custodian’s decisions are consistent with the FOIA.
OPINION 2025-079
Requested by Trooper Cade Padgett
Question: Is the custodian’s decision to release the requested records as redacted consistent with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)?
Brief Response: In my opinion, the custodian’s decision to release the records as redacted is consistent with the FOIA.
OPINION 2025-080
Requested by Mr. R. Justin Eichmann
Question: Is the custodian’s decision to withhold the requested record consistent with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)?
Brief Response: In my opinion, the custodian has correctly classified the investigation report as an employee-evaluation record, and the custodian has properly determined that the report is exempt from disclosure. Because the employee’s termination was not administratively final, the four-part test for release of an employee evaluation does not appear to be met. Further, an employee evaluation cannot be disclosed unless each element of the four-part test is met. Waiver or consent by the employee at issue cannot overcome this prohibition. Likewise, redacting employee names and protected health information does not make the report releasable.
OPINION 2025-085
Requested by State Representative R. Scott Richardson
Question: Does Act 505 of 2025 apply to the city council, the mayor, or both?
Brief Response: Act 505 of 2025 applies to “governing bodies” and their members. Because a city council is a governing body, and a mayor is typically a member of that governing body, the act applies to the city council and its individual members, including the mayor—for that particular governing body.
OPINION 2025-086
Requested by Mr. Russ Racop
Question: Is the custodian’s decision to withhold certain employment records pertaining to the termination of a Little Rock police officer consistent with the FOIA?
Brief Response: In my opinion, the custodian has incorrectly classified the Involuntary Off-Boarding Status Change Form, the CLR Police Department Termination Clearance Form, and the LRPD Termination Clearance Form as evaluation records. Although these forms relate to the employee’s termination, they do not recount the grounds for termination. Therefore, they are best classified as personnel records and should be released with redactions to the employee’s personal contact information and employee identification number. I believe the custodian has correctly classified the Letter of Termination as an evaluation record, but I do not have enough information to determine whether that record should be disclosed. It appears that three of the four elements required for release of an evaluation record have been met. However, I do not know whether the termination is administratively final. If it is final, it is my opinion that the record should not be withheld under the exemption for employee-evaluation records.
