Opinion ID: 6331490
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: District’s authority

Text: Next, the parents’ petition alleged that the District lacked the authority to issue its policy. In their prayer for relief, the parents stated that the “face coverings mandate . . . is void and unenforceable as having been issued [by the District] without legal authority[.]” Additionally, in their motion for TRO, the parents stated, “[G]iven that [the District] acted illegally in issuing [its policy] on August 11, 2021 to include the face coverings mandate generally applicable to all students despite the adverse will of the parents, [the parents] have herein demonstrated the likelihood of success on the merits in their underlying matter.” The Arkansas Constitution states that “the State shall ever maintain a general, suitable and efficient system of free public schools and shall adopt all suitable means to secure to the people the advantages and opportunities of education.” Ark. Const. art. 14, § 1. This court has held that school districts are political subdivisions of the state. Dermott Special Sch. Dist. v. Johnson, 343 Ark. 90, 95, 32 S.W.3d 477, 480 (2000); Walt Bennett Ford v. Pulaski Cnty. Special Sch. Dist., 274 Ark. 208, 212, 624 S.W.2d 426, 428 (1981). As creatures of statute, school districts may only act through a board of directors. F.E. Compton & Co. v. Greenwood Sch. Distr. No. 25, 203 Ark. 935, 159 S.W.2d 721 (1942). In Fortman v. Texarkana School District No. 7, 257 Ark. 130, 514 S.W.2d 720 (1974), this court stated that school directors have “implied powers as well as express ones.” We also stated that “school directors are authorized, not only to exercise the powers that are expressly granted by statute, but . . . [s]uch powers will be implied when the exercise thereof 12 is clearly necessary to enable them to carry out and perform the duties legally imposed upon them.” Id. at 132, 514 S.W.2d at 722 (quoting A.H. Andrews Co. v. Delight Special Sch. Dist., 95 Ark. 26, 128 S.W. 361 (1910)). We opined that “[i]n this State a broad discretion is vested in the board of directors of each school district in the matter of directing the operation of the schools[.]” Fortman, 257 Ark. at 133–34, 514 S.W.2d at 722 (quoting Safferstone v. Tucker, 235 Ark. 70, 357 S.W.2d 3 (1962)). See Ark. Code Ann. § 6-15-1002 (Supp. 2019) (providing that school districts “must provide a safe, efficient, and accountable program”). Further, our statutes allow for a school’s broad authority to determine its policies. Arkansas Code Annotated section 6-13-620(11) (Supp. 2019) authorizes the Board to “provide no less than a general, suitable, and efficient system of free public schools . . . [and] [d]o all other things necessary and lawful for the conduct of efficient free public schools in the school district.” Ark. Code Ann. § 6-13-620(11); see also Ark. Code Ann. § 6-151005(a)(1) (Supp. 2019) (providing that schools must have “safe and functional facilities”). Based on this precedent, we conclude that the District properly authorized its policy. Without delving into the underlying merits of the parents’ ongoing claims, we conclude that the parents, as the moving parties, have failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. Thus, we hold that the circuit court abused its discretion in finding that “the district policy violates the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and was enacted without proper authority[.]”