In Re Courtney Rae Hudson v. Arkansas Administrative Office of the Courts; Supreme Court Office of Professional…

Summary

This dissent argues that the court lacked jurisdiction to intervene in and dismiss a pending circuit-court action because no appeal was filed, no original-jurisdiction basis was identified, and general superintending control did not authorize the action. It further contends that the majority misread the Freedom of Information Act exemption for correspondence of Supreme Court justices and improperly treated court administrative matters as confidential. The dissent also criticizes the court's handling of the proceeding, including the referral of an attorney for investigation and the failure of participating justices to recuse after subpoenas were issued.