Washington County is about to pass an ordinance that exempts a single private recovery facility from the county's conditional use permit rules. Is that an unconstitutional 'special law' under the Arkansas Constitution?

Plain-English summary

Representative Puryear asked whether a proposed Washington County ordinance exempting Eaglecrest Recovery from conditional-use permit requirements would violate Article 5, section 25 of the Arkansas Constitution. He also asked what action could prevent enactment or enforcement if the ordinance were unlawful. The Attorney General declined both questions because related litigation was pending. The opinion cites the office's longstanding policy against opining on matters before the courts.

The opinion decides no question about the ordinance's constitutionality, whether the county could adopt it, whether any court order restricts adoption, or what remedies might be available. It also does not analyze whether the constitutional special-law provision applies to county ordinances.

What this means for you

If you serve on the quorum court

This opinion gives no approval or rejection of the proposed ordinance. Its only conclusion is that the Attorney General would not answer while related litigation was pending. Review the actual litigation and seek advice on the ordinance before acting.

If you are a resident following the proposal

The Attorney General did not determine whether the single-entity exemption would be lawful. He also declined the question about steps to prevent enactment or enforcement, so this opinion supplies no specific remedy.

If you research special-law challenges

The opinion records the constitutional question the requester posed, but supplies no legal analysis of Article 5, section 25. Do not cite it as a holding that the provision applies to quorum-court ordinances.

Common questions

Did the Attorney General decide the proposed ordinance was unconstitutional? No. He declined to answer because of pending litigation.

Did he say the county could adopt the ordinance during the federal case? No. The opinion does not address adoption, injunctions, or the status of a court order.

What action did he recommend to stop the ordinance?
None. That was the requester's second question, and the Attorney General declined it too.

Background and statutory framework

The request described proposed Ordinance 2025-[X], which would repeal Ordinance 2023-26 and exempt Eaglecrest Recovery from county conditional-use permit requirements. The requester invoked Ark. Const. art. 5, § 25. PDF footnote 1 identifies pending federal litigation: Eaglecrest Recovery, LLC et al. v. Washington County, Arkansas et al., No. 5:24-cv-05249 (W.D. Ark.), filed December 6, 2024. The Attorney General did not analyze either the ordinance or the constitutional provision.

Source

• Official opinion search: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/ (Opinion No. 2025-057; PDF consulted for footnotes).

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2025-057

September 15, 2025

The Honorable Chad Puryear
State Representative
Post Office Box 128
Goshen, Arkansas 72735

Dear Representative Puryear:

I am writing in response to your request for an opinion regarding a proposed ordinance introduced by the Washington County Quorum Court—Ordinance No. 2025-[X]—which seeks to repeal Ordinance 2023-26 and exempt a single private entity, Eaglecrest Recovery, from the County’s Conditional Use Permit requirements. You state that your constituents are concerned that the proposed ordinance “attempts to sidestep both judicial review and the county’s land use process” and that it potentially violates Article 5, section 25 of the Arkansas Constitution.

Against this background, you ask you ask the following questions:

1. Does Ordinance 2025-[X] constitute an unconstitutional special law pursuant to Article 5, section 25 of the Arkansas Constitution?

2. What action can or should be taken to prevent its enactment or enforcement if it is found to be in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions?

RESPONSE

I must respectfully decline to opine on your questions because of pending litigation, 1 the outcome of which may directly affect the answers to the questions you raised. It is the long-standing policy of the Office of the Attorney General, as a member of the executive branch, to decline to opine on matters that are pending before the courts for resolution. 2

1
See Eaglecrest Recovery, LLC et al. v. Washington County, Arkansas et al., No. 5:24-cv-05249 (W.D. Ark.), filed December 6, 2024. 2 See Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2023-028, 2011-124, 2009-048 (stating that the Office of the Attorney General does not issue opinions on matters that are in litigation).

BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201

The Honorable Chad Puryear
State Representative
Opinion No. 2025-057
Page 2

I regret that I cannot be of assistance in this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of future assistance in some other respect.

Deputy Attorney General Kelly Summerside prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.

Sincerely,

TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General