CV-24-850, Little Rock School District v. Robert Robinson, from Pulaski County Circuit Court, Sixteenth Division - Sep 16, 2026

argument CV-24-850

Little Rock School District v. Robert Robinson, from Pulaski County Circuit Court, Sixteenth Division

Arkansas Court of Appeals 46 min 1 speaker 8 chapters transcribed 4 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central dispute between Little Rock School District and Robert Robinson?

Christopher Heller 0:01

Oh Russ.

Unknown 0:18

That is it.

Brandon J. Harrison 0:22

Good morning. Today our court announces the disposition of twenty appeals. Information about these appeals is available to the public in our clerk's office in room one hundred thirty and on the judiciary website. The oral argument this morning is Court of Appeals case number C V twenty four eight five zero, Little Rock School District versus Robert Robinson from Pulaski County Circuit Court, sixteenth division. Counsel for the appellate this morning is Christopher Heller. Counsel for Apple E this morning is Lucian Gillum. Good morning. Um Mr. Heller, I see that you are going to have fifteen minutes for your original argument and reserve five minutes for rebuttal.

Unknown 1:07

Yes, we are. Okay.

Brandon J. Harrison 1:09

Um thank you and you may proceed.

Christopher Heller 1:20

Good morning and may I please the court, I'm Chris Heller for the Appellant Little Rock School District. Uh we've got two points to discuss with the court this morning for reversal of the circuit court's order. um issuing a preliminary injunction reinstating Robert Robinson. First of all Um the statute which purported to authorize that reinstatement, which is part of the Arkansas Whistleblower Protection Act. Uh Arkansas Code annotated twenty one dash six dash one dash six oh five B uh we think is a rule of pleading practice and procedure which was promulgated in violation of amendment eighty to the Arkansas Constitution. Because Rule Sixty Five, as several cases have indicated, governs the issuance of preliminary injunctions.

Christopher Heller 2:19

And um rule or the statute six oh five B purports to authorize a different method for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. Excuse

Unknown 2:31

me. Um could you pull the microphone a little bit closer to you or something? Oh yeah, I'm sorry. I was I'm not sure L. The

Christopher Heller 2:36

microphone was discussed with me earlier and I didn't pay enough attention. I have a issues. Thank

Unknown 2:42

you.

Brandon J. Harrison 2:43

Mr. Heller, let me interrupt you right there. You mentioned Rule sixty five B and I did notice in that rule that um irreparable harm is required But that's when we're issue issuing a temporary restraining order without notice. And in this case it there was notice. And s where in the rule does it say that you have to provide irreparable harm in that circumstance?

Christopher Heller 3:08

Okay. That you're correct, Your Honor, that is the text of the rule. There are decades worth of cases which say that rule sixty five. реквир a showing of irreparable harm for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction. And a number of those cases are cited in our brief. So the there's case law that says over and over again that Rule sixty five requires a showing of irreparable harm for either a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction.

Unknown 3:46

How do we get past sixty five E? Sixty five E certainly seems to state or imply that Uh, if there's a different statute that specifies a different procedure the rest of sixty five may not apply. How how do we get past that and say that this this statute is a A statute that specifies a different procedure.

Christopher Heller 4:12

Uh that's correct, Your Honor. That's exactly what Rule sixty five E says. Um and we think it helps our case. The appellate says that Rule sixty five E dooms our argument, but Rule sixty five E was added to the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure in twenty twenty three. uh by procurium opinion on november sixteenth, twenty twenty three. And In that procureum opinion Um the Supreme Court said A couple of things in the rule and then there are the reporters' notes that accompany that procurium opinion. And what the Supreme Court said in the rule itself is that it applies to statutes which allow emergency relief. And what the reporter's notes add to that to provide context are examples of exactly the type of thing

Christopher Heller 5:11

The Supreme Court was talking about when it said in the rule itself. that there is an exception for emergency relief. And those kinds of things As the reporter's notes point out, are true emergencies. um child custody issues, adult um at uh people at risk of endangerment. Uh it gives several examples of other procedures that have been authorized only in the case of emergencies.