Sagely v. Hutchinson

685 S.W.3d 238

2024 Ark. 37

Floyd E. SAGELY, Jr., Appellant

v.Asa HUTCHINSON, Governor of Arkansas; Colonel William J. Bryant, Director of the Arkansas State Police; and Brad Cazort, Director of the Arkansas Crime Information Center, in Their Official Capacities, Appellees

No. CV-23-349

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Opinion Delivered: March 28, 2024

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 60CV-20-2730], HONORABLE CARA CONNORS, JUDGE

Smith, Cohen & Horan, PLC, Fort Smith, by: Matthew T. Horan, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Carl F. "Trey" Cooper III, Sr. Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellees.

BARBARA W. WEBB, Justice

₁Appellant Floyd Sagely appeals the Pulaski County Circuit Court’s order dismissing his. equal-protection claim with prejudice against appellees Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson, Arkansas Crime Information Center (ACIC) Director Brad Cazort, and Arkansas State Police Director Colonel William Bryant, in their official capacities. For reversal, Sagely argues that Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-73-103 (Repl. 2016) is unconstitutional under both New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 142 S.Ct. 2111, 213 L.Ed.2d 387. (2022) and, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In addition, Sagely argues that the circuit court erred in dismissing the State of Arkansas and Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge as parties. We affirm.¹

₂I. Background

In 2010, a petition to involuntarily commit Sagely was filed by his wife. The Sebastian County Circuit Court held a hearing on the petition and heard testimony that Sagely was paranoid, delusional, believed people were watching him, believed his home and work had been "bugged" and tore apart household appliances to find hidden cameras, was sleep deprived, drank and carried what appeared to be crystal meth, saw images not visible to others, carried loaded guns with him, shot a bullet through the floorboard of his truck, and shot a bullet through the ceiling of his home because he believed something was in the attic. The State also admitted a medical evaluation of Sagely, which recommended his commitment to a treatment facility. Based on the testimony and the medical evaluation, the circuit court found that Sagely posed a clear and present danger to himself and others. Sagely was thus involuntarily committed to a mental health treatment facility for up to forty-five days under Arkansas Code Annotated sections 20-47-201 et seq.

On May 15, 2019, Sagely was stopped for a traffic violation in Little River County. The officer performed a routine ACIC check, which revealed that Sagely had been "involuntarily committed" Because Sagely possessed a firearm in his car, he was charged with a Class A misdemeanor under Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-73-103, which prohibits a person who has been "committed involuntarily to any mental institution" from possessing or owning a firearm; Sagely accepted a plea bargain and paid a fine and costs with credit for "time served."

On April 22, 2020, Sagely filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the State of Arkansas, Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, Arkansas State Police Director William Bryant, and the ACIC. He sought relief from the statutory prohibition ₃preventing him from owning or possessing a firearm. Sagely later amended his complaint to add Governor Asa Hutchinson and ACIC Director Brad Cazort.

Sagely asserted that Arkansas Code Annotated sections 5-73-103 and 5-73-309, which govern who may own and possess a firearm in Arkansas, do not apply to him because he was involuntarily "admitted" to a treatment facility and not "committed." If sections 5-73-103 and 5-73-309 did apply to him, Sagely contended, these statutes violated equal protection by allowing felons to petition to have their gun rights reinstated but does not allow those who were involuntarily committed to a mental health facility to have their gun rights reinstated. In addition, Sagely argued Arkansas Code Annotated sections 20-47-201 et seq. (Repl. 2018 & Supp. 2023), which sets, forth the statutory framework for involuntarily committing a person, violates due process. In sum he sought a declaration that he is legally entitled to own and possess a firearm under Arkansas law. Sagely also sought an injunction against the ACIC obliging it to disregard his 2010 adjudication of mental illness.

Appellees moved to dismiss Sagely’s complaint for improper service and failure to state facts upon which relief could be granted. The circuit court dismissed all claims against the State of Arkansas and the Attorney General.² The circuit court also dismissed all but Sagely’s equal-protection claim.

Sagely subsequently moved for judgment on the pleadings or, alternatively, summary judgment on his remaining equal-protection claim. He argued that section 5-73-103 was subject to intermediate scrutiny, and under such review, the statute violated his equal ₄protection rights because no legitimate state interest is furthered by treating felons and persons previously committed to a mental health facility differently. Appellees responded, asserting entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. They argued that Sagely could not prevail under an equal-protection analysis since he is not similarly situated to persons adjudicated as felons. Further, appellees contended Sagely’s claim was subject to rational-basis review, and even if intermediate scrutiny applied, section 5-73-103 should be upheld because the State has a legitimate interest in public safety, which is furthered by prohibiting individu- als that have been involuntarily committed from possessing firearms.

The circuit court held Sagely’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and appellees’ cross-motion in abeyance pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen. The circuit court did so because the parties differed on the appropriate level of scrutiny to be applied to Sagely’s equal-protection claim in the context of gun ownership rights under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and one issue raised in Bruen was the appropriate level of scrutiny in Second Amendment cases.

The Supreme Court ultimately held in Bruen that when courts review the validity of a firearm restriction under the Second Amendment, the government must demonstrate that such restriction is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Id. at 17, 142 S.Ct. 2111. In consideration of the Bruen decision, the circuit court ordered supplemental briefing from the parties. Sagely argued in his supplemental brief that section 5-73-103 fails under Bruen because Arkansas did not have any laws prohibiting those involuntarily committed to a mental facility from possessing or owning a firearm until 1976. Appellees argued in ₅response that section 5-73-103 is presumptively lawful under the Second Amendment and, alternatively, historical evidence supports restrictions on the mentally ill.

Following a hearing, the circuit court entered an order denying Sagely’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granting appellees’ cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. The circuit court rejected Sagely’s equal-protection claim, finding that persons who have been involuntarily committed due to mental illness are not similarly situated to those who have been convicted of a felony offense. Accordingly, the circuit court dismissed Sagely’s complaint with prejudice. This appeal followed.

II. Discussion

A motion for judgment on the pleadings is appropriate if the pleadings show on their face that there is no merit to the suit. Monsanto Co. v. Ark. State Plant Bd., 2021 Ark. 103, at 5, 622 S.W.3d 166, 170. When we review the granting of judgment on the pleadings, we view the facts alleged in the complaint as true and in the light most favorable to the party seeking relief. Id. We will affirm the circuit court’s decision in the absence of an abuse of discretion. Id. However, issues of law, such as the constitutionality of a statute, are reviewed de novo. See Landers v. Stone, 2016 Ark. 272, at 5, 496 S.W.3d 370, 375.

On appeal, Sagely argues that section 5-73-103 is unconstitutional under Bruen because there is no historical tradition of prohibiting those committed to a mental health facility from possessing firearms. Further, he contends section 5-73-103 is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause by treating felons and persons adjudicated mentally ill ₆differently. Sagely also argues that the circuit court erred in dismissing the State of Arkansas and the Arkansas Attorney General as parties.³

A. Standing

Before reaching these arguments, we first address appellees’ threshold contention that Sagely lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of section 5-73-103. Appellees assert that federal law also prevents Sagely from owning or possess ing a firearm; thus; even if he obtains a favorable ruling-in this case, Sagely would still not be entitled to the relief he seeks—restoration of his Second Amendment rights.⁴

[1] The general rule is that one must have suffered injury or belong to a class that is prejudiced to have standing to challenge the constitutional validity of a law. Ark. Tobacco Control Bd. v. Sitton, 357 Ark. 357, 363; 166 S.W.3d 550, 554 (2004). Stated differently, a plaintiff must show that the questioned act has a prejudicial impact on him or her. Tauber v. State, 324 Ark. 47, 49, 919 S.W.2d 196, 197 (1996).

[2] Sagely has plainly been prejudiced by section 5-78-103 because it currently prohibits him from possessing a firearm. And because he pled guilty to misdemeanor possession in 2019, Sagely is now subject to felony prosecution under Arkansas law should he be arrested again for possessing a firearm. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-73-103(c)(1)(G) (Supp. 2023). Whether Sagely is also barred under federal law from possessing a firearm is not an issue before this ₇court. Accordingly, we conclude...