Sovereign Immunity and Fact-Pleading Requirements for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (2025 Ark. 34)

Introduction

In Jonathan Brizendine and Melissa Brizendine v. Department of Human Services of the State of Arkansas, et al. (2025 Ark. 34), the Arkansas Supreme Court confronted the intersection of sovereign immunity and the pleading requirements for suits seeking only declaratory or injunctive relief against state actors. The appellants, Jonathan and Melissa Brizendine, are non-religious foster-parent applicants whose application was denied by the Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS). They alleged that the denial was motivated by their atheism and by a reference to medical-marijuana use, asserting violations of the Arkansas Constitution’s religious-freedom guarantee, the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment. The key question on appeal was whether sovereign immunity barred their suit—even though they sought only injunctive and declaratory relief—because their complaint purportedly lacked sufficient factual allegations to qualify under the “illegal, unconstitutional, or ultra vires act” exception to immunity.

Summary of the Judgment

On April 10, 2025, the Arkansas Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Pulaski County Circuit Court’s dismissal of the Brizendines’ complaint. The court held that:

Under Arkansas law, suits against the State seeking only injunctive or declaratory relief may proceed if—and only if—the plaintiff pleads sufficient facts showing an illegal, unconstitutional, or ultra vires act by the government.
The Brizendines’ complaint contained only threadbare, conclusory allegations that DHS denied their foster-parent application on the basis of their non-religious status and medical-marijuana use. Such speculative assertions failed the State’s fact-pleading requirements.
No facts in the complaint tied Governor Sanders or the Child Welfare Agency Review Board to the alleged wrongful conduct, so they too were immune from suit.

Accordingly, the court held that sovereign immunity barred the suit and affirmed the dismissal. Chief Justice Baker concurred in the result on broader grounds, while Justice Hudson concurred in part and dissented in part as to DHS.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Ark. Dev. Fin. Auth. v. Wiley (2020 Ark. 395): Established that on a motion to dismiss, courts view pleadings in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and consider only the complaint’s allegations.
Ark. State Plant Bd. v. McCarty (2019 Ark. 214): Clarified that courts accept pleaded facts as true but not legal theories or speculation.
Milligan v. Singer (2019 Ark. 177): Held that immunity questions are pure questions of law subject to de novo review.
Hutchinson v. Armstrong (2022 Ark. 59): Recognized an exception to sovereign immunity for suits seeking only declaratory or injunctive relief against illegal, unconstitutional, or ultra vires acts.
Banks v. Jones (2019 Ark. 204): Emphasized that plaintiffs invoking the immunity exception must still satisfy fact-pleading requirements under Rule 8(a) and Rule 12(b)(6).
Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas v. Andrews (2018 Ark. 12): A concurring/dissenting discussion on the absolute nature of sovereign immunity under Article 5, Section 20 of the Arkansas Constitution.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s analysis rested on three pillars:

Scope of Sovereign Immunity
Article 5, Section 20 of the Arkansas Constitution generally bars suits against the State. An exception exists for suits seeking only injunctive or declaratory relief challenging an illegal, unconstitutional, or ultra vires act.
Pleading Requirements
Even under the exception, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts—not conclusory statements—to state a plausible claim. The Brizendines’ complaint merely recited that questions about religion and pharmaceuticals “had a prejudicial impact” on DHS’s decision, without factual glue tying DHS’s denial specifically to those factors.
Application to Appellees
The complaint lacked any factual allegations regarding the Governor’s or the Review Board’s involvement in the foster-application process, so sovereign immunity protected them as well.

Impact on Future Cases

This decision underscores the heightened burden on litigants who seek to challenge state action under the illegal-act exception to sovereign immunity. Courts will:

Scrutinize the factual detail of complaints against state agencies and officials.
Reject speculative or threadbare allegations as inadequate to proceed.
Continue shielding state actors from suit when plaintiffs fail to connect the challenged action to specific wrongful conduct.

Future plaintiffs must draft complaints with clear, fact-based narratives demonstrating both the actor and the unconstitutional or ultra vires nature of the act.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Sovereign Immunity: A legal doctrine that prevents the State from being sued unless the Constitution or a legislature expressly allows it.
Ultra Vires Act: An action taken by a state official outside the scope of the authority granted by law.
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief: Court orders that either declare the rights of parties (declaratory) or require/forbid certain actions (injunctive) without awarding money damages.
Fact-Pleading vs. Conclusory Allegations:
- Fact-pleading: Specific, concrete factual details about what happened, who did it, where, and when.
- Conclusive allegations: Vague legal conclusions without supporting detail (e.g., “Defendant acted with discrimination” with no supporting circumstances).
Rule 12(b)(6): A procedural rule allowing dismissal when the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Conclusion

The Arkansas Supreme Court’s decision in 2025 Ark. 34 reaffirms that sovereign immunity continues to be a formidable barrier in suits against state agencies and officials seeking injunctive or declaratory relief. Even under the narrow “illegal, unconstitutional, or ultra vires” exception, plaintiffs must satisfy rigorous fact-pleading requirements. Threadbare assertions and speculation will not clear the immunity hurdle. By insisting on concrete factual allegations, the court preserves sovereign immunity’s protective scope while carving out a limited pathway for meritorious constitutional challenges—provided they are carefully and factually pleaded from the outset.