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 the AG two questions about a proposed Washington County Quorum Court ordinance, Ordinance 2025-[X], which would repeal Ordinance 2023-26 and exempt a specific private entity (Eaglecrest Recovery) from the county's conditional use permit requirements. Constituents had raised concerns that the proposed ordinance "attempts to sidestep both judicial review and the county's land use process" and might violate the Arkansas Constitution's prohibition on special laws (article 5, section 25).
The AG declined to opine on either question. The reason: a federal lawsuit, Eaglecrest Recovery, LLC v. Washington County, was already pending in the Western District of Arkansas, filed December 6, 2024. The outcome of that suit may directly affect the special-law analysis the legislator was asking about. The AG's office has a longstanding policy of not opining on matters pending before the courts.
This opinion is therefore procedural rather than substantive. The AG took no position on whether the ordinance, if adopted, would be constitutional or what remedies might apply if it were not.
Currency note
This opinion is recent (September 2025), but its operational value is limited because the AG declined to interpret the ordinance or article 5, section 25 on the merits. The pending federal case is the most reliable source of forward-looking guidance on the substantive issues. Anyone evaluating Ordinance 2025-[X] or similar single-entity exemption ordinances should track Eaglecrest Recovery v. Washington County, No. 5:24-cv-05249 (W.D. Ark.), and any successor opinions from the AG once that case resolves.
What this means for you
If you are a member of a quorum court considering a similar ordinance
Do not treat this opinion as a green light. The AG declined to opine, which is not the same as approving. Article 5, section 25 of the Arkansas Constitution prohibits special laws "in any case where a general law can be made applicable." That doctrine has serious traction against ordinances that single out a named entity for an exemption others in the same class do not get. Get an opinion from your county attorney with the specific factual record before voting.
If your county is considering an ordinance modeled on the Washington County one, watch the Eaglecrest litigation. A federal-court ruling on the underlying conditional-use permit dispute, or a state-court special-law challenge running in parallel, will provide the doctrinal posture you need.
If you are a county attorney or land-use attorney
The opinion does not give you doctrinal guidance, but it does flag the analytical setup. If a quorum court adopts a special-favor ordinance for a named entity while litigation is pending against the county over the same use, you have a foreseeable special-law challenge from neighbors and from any party adversely affected. Build the legislative record (general-law alternatives considered, classification rationale, public health and safety findings) before adoption rather than after.
If you are a resident of Washington County or a neighbor of the affected facility
The constitutional question is unresolved. Engage in the quorum court's deliberation. If the ordinance passes, your remedies include challenging it in state court under article 5, section 25, separate from any federal claims pending in the Eaglecrest case.
If you are tracking land-use politics in northwest Arkansas
The ordinance pattern (repeal a general ordinance, replace with a carve-out for a single named entity) is precisely the move article 5, section 25 was written to limit. Whether this particular instance crosses the line is fact-bound and unresolved.
Common questions
Why does the AG decline to opine on pending-litigation matters?
The AG describes this as "long-standing policy," citing prior opinions (2023-028, 2011-124, 2009-048). The reasoning is institutional: the AG is part of the executive branch, and substantive interpretation of the same legal questions a court is preparing to decide could be seen as influencing the parties or the judge.
What is article 5, section 25 of the Arkansas Constitution?
It prohibits the General Assembly (and, by extension, local legislative bodies operating within delegated authority) from passing "any special law" in cases where "a general law can be made applicable." The doctrine was historically used to prevent legislative favoritism. A single-entity exemption from a generally applicable land-use rule is the kind of statute that often triggers a section 25 challenge.
What is a "conditional use permit"?
A conditional use permit is a county or city land-use approval that lets a specific use of land go forward subject to conditions imposed by the planning commission or quorum court. Conditions can include things like setbacks, hours of operation, traffic studies, and screening requirements. Exemptions from CUP requirements are unusual and typically applied to broad classes (like religious institutions or schools), not to a single named operator.
What is the underlying Eaglecrest case about?
Filed December 6, 2024, in the Western District of Arkansas. The complaint and docket are public on PACER and CourtListener. The federal claims appear to overlap with the conditional-use permit dispute that motivated Ordinance 2023-26. Without ruling on the merits, the AG noted that the case's outcome could "directly affect" the constitutional analysis Representative Puryear was asking about.
Can the quorum court adopt the ordinance while the federal case is pending?
Procedurally, yes. The federal case does not enjoin local legislative action. But adoption while litigation is pending is a strategic and reputational call, and adopters expose the ordinance to immediate state-court challenge.
Background and statutory framework
Article 5, section 25. The Arkansas Constitution prohibits special laws where a general law could apply. The Supreme Court of Arkansas has repeatedly invoked the section to strike down laws that single out individual entities for unique treatment when the same regulatory concern could be addressed by a general statute. The doctrine extends to local legislative bodies operating within delegated authority, including quorum courts.
The decline-to-opine policy. The AG cites three prior opinions (2023-028, 2011-124, 2009-048) for the proposition that the office does not opine on matters pending in court. The policy is consistently applied; readers seeking doctrinal answers must wait for the courts or seek private legal advice.
The factual record. The opinion describes Ordinance 2025-[X] as a draft proposal that would repeal Ordinance 2023-26 and exempt a single private entity, Eaglecrest Recovery, from CUP requirements. The constituent concerns Representative Puryear relayed include the suggestion that the proposed ordinance "attempts to sidestep both judicial review and the county's land use process." The AG made no finding on those concerns.
Why the federal case matters to a state-constitutional opinion. Federal courts can rule on state constitutional questions that arise as defenses or counterclaims, especially in cases involving land-use disputes between a county and a private operator. Even if the federal court does not directly address article 5, section 25, its rulings on the underlying CUP dispute (whether the permit denial was valid, whether the ordinance is being applied uniformly, whether procedural protections were honored) will shape any later state-court special-law challenge.
Citations
Arkansas Constitution:
- Ark. Const. art. 5, § 25 (prohibition on special laws where a general law can be made applicable)
Cases:
- Eaglecrest Recovery, LLC et al. v. Washington County, Arkansas et al., No. 5:24-cv-05249 (W.D. Ark.), filed December 6, 2024
Other AG opinions referenced:
- Ark. Att'y Gen. Ops. 2023-028, 2011-124, 2009-048 (decline-to-opine policy on pending litigation)
Source
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 the following questions:
- Does Ordinance 2025-[X] constitute an unconstitutional special law pursuant to Article 5, section 25 of the Arkansas Constitution?
- 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, 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.
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
[Footnote 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.]
[Footnote 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).]