State of Arkansas, et al., v. Good Day Farm Arkansas, LLC, et al.

On December 11, 2025, in the case of the State of Arkansas, et al., v. Good Day Farm Arkansas, LLC, et al., the Arkansas Supreme Court by a 6–0 vote struck down a constitutional amendment to the Arkansas Constitution, thus altering a process that was intended as an avenue for the people to bypass an obstructionist legislature via a citizen-initiated referendum. Critics saw this ruling as the latest in a distressing string of actions aimed at undermining democracy in the state. It was the second major Arkansas Supreme Court decision in recent years in which Arkansas voters had been denied the opportunity for change through a citizen-initiated referendum, and was certainly no less controversial than the August 22, 2024, ruling in Arkansans for Limited Government v. Thurston.

The roots of the case go back to 1920. Following World War I but with the spirit of the Progressive Era still alive, the Arkansas General Assembly put before the voters of Arkansas a proposed amendment to the state constitution, which created both initiative and referendum options. The voters offered a resounding show of support for the proposal, and the measure became known as Amendment 7 of the Arkansas Constitution. In addition to adding this direct-democracy provision to the state constitution, Amendment 7 also amended the existing Article 5, Section 1 so that it read: “[n]o measure approved by a vote of the people shall be amended or repealed by the General Assembly or by any city council, except upon a yea and nay vote on roll call of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house of the General Assembly, or of the city council, as the case may be.” Article 5, Section 1 also included a definition of the term “measure,” calling it “any bill, law, resolution, ordinance, charter, constitutional amendment or legislative proposal or enactment of any character.”

While many argued that the language in Article 5, Section 1 offered a way for the Arkansas General Assembly to change the constitution directly, in 1951, in Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. Edgmon, the state Supreme Court said that was, in fact, not the case, stating that it was “inconceivable” that Amendment 7 was intended to give the legislature “the authority to amend an amendment.” This question was the crux of the dispute in State of Arkansas, et al., v. Good Day Farm Arkansas, LLC, et al. as the state sought a ruling from the court that would overturn an almost seventy-five-year-old precedent.

The specifics of the case that would ultimately come before the state’s highest court in 2025 were straightforward. In 2016, a voter initiative put on the ballot an amendment concerning medical marijuana. The proposal that would become Amendment 98 was approved by voters by a solid 53–47 margin. However, almost as soon as the amendment went into effect, the legislature began passing laws that altered it. Specifically, it imposed limits on advertising while also implementing other regulations concerning aspects of the cannabis trade. In response, two medical marijuana dispensaries—Good Day Farms Arkansas and Capitol City Medicinals—filed suit, naming the State of Arkansas, the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration, and the state’s Alcoholic Beverage Control Division as defendants. Relying upon the Arkansas Supreme Court’s 1951 ruling in Edgmon, they argued that all of the twenty-eight laws passed by the legislature that sought to amend the medical marijuana amendment were unconstitutional.

The state, represented by state Attorney General Tim Griffin, offered two counterarguments. The first asserted that under sovereign immunity the state could not be sued in state court in a case for monetary damages. In the alternative, he also argued that, based on the language in Article 5, Section 1 the legislature was fully empowered to amend a citizen-initiated amendment.

At the trial court level, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chip Welch ruled in favor of the dispensaries. He said that, based on the Edgmon ruling, the legislature had no legal authority to change the amendment. The state immediately appealed, raising the same arguments to the Supreme Court that had previously been unsuccessful.

The opinion written by Associate Justice Cody Hiland said that the suit was not barred by sovereign immunity, since it did not seek monetary damages, but that proved to be of little consequence, for on the truly important issue, whether the legislature could alter the initiative-based amendment, the court ruled in the state’s favor.

Focusing on an element of the case that had received little notice, Justice Hiland observed that Section 23 of the medical marijuana amendment authorized the legislature to amend that law “in the same manner as required for amendment of law initiated by the people.” To some, that distinction seemed to perhaps differentiate it from Edgmon, and in his opinion, Hiland removed all doubt. Hiland’s opinion noted that the court had, in fact, addressed the issue in Martin v. Haas, a 2018 case in which they had interpreted a virtually identical provision to mean that the legislature could amend a citizen-initiated amendment by a two-thirds vote. In that instance, the court noted that it had all but overruled the Edgmon precedent, with Hiland declaring that “this court effectively set Edgmon aside seven years ago, and nothing persuades us to chart a different course now.” On behalf of the court, Hiland said they accepted the state’s contention that the text “confers upon the General Assembly the authority to amend or repeal laws initiated and approved by the people with a two-thirds vote of both houses.”

The court also refuted the assertion that overruling Edgmon would give the legislature unfettered power to amend any amendments, noting that only citizen-initiated amendments were impacted by this ruling. It had reduced the direct power of the people, but their representatives still appeared to retain some authority even if they seemed to be in direct competition with themselves in exercising it.

The decision reflected a notable lineup of judges as Special Justices Barbara Halsey and Don Curdie joined Justice Hiland’s opinion while Chief Justice Karen Baker and Justices Rhonda Wood and Shawn Womack concurred. Justices Courtney Rae Hudson and Nick Bronni recused themselves. Justice Wood authored a concurrence in which she wrote that she believed that “overruling Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. Edgmon is an unnecessary and advisory resolution of this case.”

The ruling was a clear setback for advocates of direct democracy. After the ruling was handed down, disappointed but determined advocates, led by attorney David Couch who had been a central figure in the original medical marijuana amendment, working with the state’s League of Women voters, created an organization called Save AR Democracy that began working to put a new, specifically crafted ballot measure before the voters in 2026. At the same time, another group, Protect AR Rights, began working to get a measure of its own before the voters with a similar goal. However, these efforts were unsuccessful.

For additional information:
Campbell, Matt, and Benjamin Hardy. “The Arkansas Supreme Court Just Gutted Direct Democracy.” Arkansas Times, December 11, 2025. https://arktimes.com/arkansas-blog/2025/12/11/the-arkansas-supreme-court-just-gutted-direct-democracy (accessed September 30, 2026).

Earley, Neal. “Voter-Backed Amendments Open for Edits.” Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, December 12, 2025, pp. 1A, 5A. Online at https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2025/dec/11/arkansas-supreme-court-rules-state-lawmakers-can/ (accessed September 30, 2026).

State of Arkansas; Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration; Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration, Alcoholic Beverage Control Division v. Good Day Farm Arkansas, LLC; and Capital City Medicinals, LLC, 2025 Ark. 207 (2025); https://law.justia.com/cases/arkansas/supreme-court/2025/cv-24-704.html (accessed September 30, 2026).

William H. Pruden III
Raleigh, North Carolina