Arkansa

State constitutional guarantees + Case Law

Ark. Const. art. XIV, § 1 “Intelligence and virtue being the safeguards of liberty and the bulwark of a free and good government, 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. The specific intention of this amendment is to authorize that in addition to existing constitutional or statutory provisions the General Assembly and/or public school districts may spend public funds for the education of persons over twenty-one (21) years of age and under six (6) years of age, as may be provided by law, and no other interpretation shall be given to it.”

The Education Clause creates an “absolute [constitutional] duty . . . to provide an adequate education to each school child, as well as an equal education to each school child.” 

Walker v. Ark. State Bd. Of Educ., 2010 Ark. 277, 365 S.W.3d 899, 910 (2010).  

What constitutes an adequate education has been a fundamental question in Arkansas case law. In Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee (2002-2007 line of cases), the Arkansas Supreme Court adopted the view that the State has a constitutional duty to provide Arkansas children “with a general, suitable, and efficient school-funding system.” 351 Ark. 31, 72, 91 S.W.3d 472, 495 (2002), supplemented, 358 Ark. 137, 189 S.W.3d 1 (2004). The Court notes the State’s obligation to provide adequate education is a “paramount duty.” Id. at 492. While the Court is quick to impose this duty on the State, it expresses hesitation in interpreting this language to imply “a fundamental right vested in the people of this state so as to require strict scrutiny of all legislative actions regarding it.” Id. Ultimately, the Court held that because “the clear language of Article 14 imposes upon the State an absolute constitutional duty to educate our children, we conclude it is unnecessary to reach the issue of whether a fundamental right is also implied.” Id. 

The Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 Court also repeatedly addressed the question of equality in public education. The Court observed a “considerable overlap between the issue of whether a school-funding system is inadequate and whether it is inequitable.” Id. at 496. On this question, the Court held: 

“It is the State's responsibility, first and foremost, to develop forthwith what constitutes an adequate education in Arkansas. It is, next, the State's responsibility to assess, evaluate, and monitor, not only the lower elementary grades for English and math proficiency, but the entire spectrum of public education across the state to determine whether equal educational opportunity for an adequate education is being substantially afforded to Arkansas' school children. It is, finally, the State's responsibility to know how state revenues are being spent and whether true equality in opportunity is being achieved. Equality of educational opportunity must include as basic components substantially equal curricula, substantially equal facilities, and substantially equal equipment for obtaining an adequate education. The key to all this, to repeat, is to determine what comprises an adequate education in Arkansas.”

Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 of Phillips Cnty. v. Huckabee, 351 Ark. 31, 79, 91 S.W.3d 472, 500 (2002), supplemented, 358 Ark. 137, 189 S.W.3d 1 (2004)

While the questions of adequacy and equality are necessary, the more fundamental holding from this case is that the State has a duty to provide an adequate and equal education, but there is no fundamental right to enjoy that education. This decision allows the Courts to chide the legislature and related agencies for failing to meet this obligation, but enshrines that this is not a judicially enforceable right. 

Legislative History

• 1836 Constitution: First education clause linked education to preserving free government. Directed legislature to manage school lands/funds and encourage intellectual and moral improvement.

• 1861 Secession Constitution: Narrowed duty, focused only on applying funds to education, without mandating a system.

• 1864 Constitution: Restored 1836 language.

• 1868 Reconstruction Constitution: First explicit mandate for a system of free schools for all children ages 5–21, with funding distribution rules and creation of state education officers.

• 1874 Constitution: Current foundation. Required the State to maintain a general, suitable, and efficient system of free schools for all children ages 6–21.

• Amendment 53 (1968): Expanded scope to include kindergarten and adult education.

Amendment 74 (1996): Required a uniform statewide property tax for school funding to address inequities.

Ark. Code Ann. § 6-18-514(b)(1)

• Declares it state policy that every public school student has a right to an educational environment reasonably free from substantial intimidation, harassment, harm, or threats of harm, based on race, color, religion, national origin, disability, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or academic standing.

• Requires districts to maintain policies for reporting and investigating harassment or bullying, and protects individuals reporting from retaliation.

Act 721 of 2025 – Antisemitism in Schools

• Requires K–12 schools to treat antisemitic harassment as they would other prohibited discrimination, including policy, training, and curriculum measures.

Act 746 of 2023 – DACA Professional Licensure

• Allows DACA recipients with valid employment authorization to obtain professional licenses, including teaching credentials.

Act 217 of 2023 – Scholarship Equity for Immigrant Students

• Extends eligibility for the Governor’s Distinguished Scholarship and High-Tech Scholarship to DACA recipients, COFA migrants, and certain H-4 visa holders.

Act 663 of 2023 – Dual Immersion Programs

• Authorizes bilingual curricula in K–12 schools to serve English Language Learners and immigrant students.

Additional Protections / Notes

• LGBTQ+ students: No explicit state protections; state law restricts some discussions and policies regarding gender identity and sexual orientation in schools.

• Multilingual learners: Supported through dual-immersion programs and English learner policies, but no standalone civil rights statute.

• Undocumented students: Access largely dependent on federal law; state-level protections are limited.

• Law enforcement / color-of-law liability in schools: No state statutory framework; federal law (42 U.S.C. § 1983) governs.

Arkansas Civil Rights Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-123-101 et seq.

• Protects against discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, gender, or disability in public accommodations, employment, credit, and property.

• Provides a private right of action for intentional discrimination, but does not explicitly cover K–12 schools or disparate impact claims.

• Note that the public schools are not listed in the definition of public accommodations under Arkansas law. 

• However, courts have used ARCA and the Administrative Procedures Act to allow challenges to state or school district actions that allegedly harm a students’ educational opportunities, interpreting the state’s constitutional duty to provide an adequate education as one that can be enforced through the use of these two statutes.  The parents argued that the closure of a school violated their children’s civil rights to an adequate education, and depriving them of that right was actionable under ARCA. 

Arkansas state law does not prohibit discrimination caused by disparate impact, and there is no private right for such claims. 

Who has standing to bring claims

“Any person who is injured by an intentional act of discrimination . . . shall have a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin further violations, to recover compensatory and punitive damages, and, in the discretion of the court, to recover the cost of litigation and a reasonable attorney's fee.”

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-123-107 (West)

Arkansas courts have interpreted this right to extend to parents or guardians filing claims under the ARCA on behalf of their minor children. See Walker, 365 S.W.3d at 908. (“Notwithstanding the fact that we have not previously recognized a fundamental right to an adequate education, the State has an absolute constitutional duty to provide them with one, and we hold that the Parents' allegation that their children would suffer a negative impact on their academic achievement due to the Board's approval of the District's petition for closure was sufficient injury to confer standing under the APA as outlined in Moore.”). 

Retaliation claims

Yes, the ARCA specifically states there can be no discriminatory retaliation for bringing suit under it and that it is unlawful to “coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this subchapter.” Ark. Code Ann. § 16-123-108. 

SOL for Civil Rights Complaint

Arkansas courts have applied the three-year statute of limitation found in Ark.Code.Ann. §16-56-105 to discrimination claims arising under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. See Mustafa v. United Auto Grp., No. 4:03CV00304, 2005 WL 1923107, at *3 (E.D. Ark. July 19, 2005).

Areas that Exceed Federal Protections

Yes. The bullying and harassment protections in Ark. Code Ann. § 6-18-514 extends protected characteristics beyond what’s required by federal law (includes “race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, socioeconomic status, academic status, disability, gender, gender identity, physical appearance, health condition, or sexual orientation.”

The same statute contains explicit anti-retaliation protections, requiring “that that any person who files a credible report or makes a complaint of bullying not be subject to retaliation or reprisal in any form.” Ark. Code Ann. § 6-18-514 (f)(2)(E).