Justices rule on lawyers’ gun suit

Despite barring one of three plaintiffs in a lawsuit over whether attorneys may bring firearms into courthouses, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled in favor of two other plaintiffs saying state law does allow armed attorneys into courthouses — although not necessarily courtrooms — in Arkansas.

In a Thursday ruling, Chris Corbitt, who has filed numerous lawsuits challenging firearms restrictions in state buildings, courthouses and other venues, was precluded as a plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit filed by himself and Little Rock attorneys Robert Steinbuch and Ben Motal but that same ruling appears to have opened the courthouse doors in Arkansas to attorneys who wish to enter while armed.

According to a majority opinion penned by Justice Shawn Womack, Corbitt filed a complaint in January 2020 after he was turned away from the Pulaski County District Court by a security guard who told him attorneys were not allowed to carry firearms into any courthouse in the state. In that complaint, which Womack dubbed “Corbitt I,” Corbitt sought a declaration that Act 1087 of 2017 “allows attorneys as ‘officers of the court’ to carry firearms in any courtroom or courthouse in the state,” and that by denying such access, Pulaski County Judge Barry Hyde and Sheriff Eric Higgins were in violation of state law.

In September 2021, Womack wrote, in response to Hyde’s and Higgins’ motion to dismiss the case, Corbitt filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking the court to direct the de

fendants to allow attorneys to carry firearms in court “as permitted by state law.” Ultimately, the court ruled against Corbitt in a ruling that was upheld by the state Supreme Court.

“While Corbitt I was being reviewed by this court,” Womack wrote, “Mr. Corbitt attempted to enter a second Pulaski County court facility with a handgun.”

After being denied permission to enter the Pulaski County Circuit Courthouse while armed, Corbitt took a photograph of a sign outside Judge Tim Fox’s courtroom that prohibited firearms, Womack wrote, and in response to that incident, Corbitt, Steinbuch and Motal filed a class-action complaint in the Pulaski County Circuit Court against Hyde, Higgins and the Pulaski County Circuit Court, represented by Fox — which was dubbed “Corbitt II.”

In Thursday’s ruling, Womack wrote that procedural errors resulted in the complaint being amended twice and on March 22, 2023, the complaint was dismissed by the circuit judge who concluded, among other things, that Corbitt was collaterally estopped from bringing the same case twice, and that Steinbuch and Motal lacked sufficient standing to bring the case and had failed to plead sufficiently under Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure.

The high court ruled that Corbitt had made the same arguments point by point in both complaints, the only distinguishing feature of the two complaints being the differing locations — the Pulaski County District Courthouse in Corbitt I and the Pulaski County Circuit Courthouse in Corbitt II.

Womack wrote that although Corbitt was collaterally estopped from pursuing his claim, Steinbuch and Motal were free to proceed. In that same opinion, however, the high court held that “attorneys, as officers of the court, are authorized by statute to possess handguns in courthouses.”

The high court then reversed the circuit court’s denial of the petition for declaratory judgment “as it pertains to the remaining plaintiffs,” and remanded the matter back to the circuit court “for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Justice Karen Baker, while concurring on the issue of Corbitt being barred from the lawsuit, dissented on the remainder of the decision, saying the relevant state law does not distinguish between courtrooms and courthouses. In her dissent, Baker wrote, “because the statute treats courtrooms and courthouses the same, the attempt to distinguish courtrooms and courthouses is a distinction without a difference.”

The ruling does not extend to federal courthouses located inside the state, which prohibit armed entry except to court security officers and the U.S. Marshals Service.

Reached by phone on Thursday, Steinbuch — a law professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock W.H. Bowen School of Law and a columnist for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette — said the decision was part technical and part substantive.

“The technical is of the three people that sued,” Steinbuch said, “only two were allowed to sue, that’s all. Chris was not allowed to sue because he, for himself, had the issue decided already and there’s a doctrine in law that says … he’s not allowed to bring this lawsuit again.”

The substantive part of the ruling, Steinbuch said, was the majority court opinion that under the law, attorneys are allowed to carry firearms into courthouses in Arkansas.

“When the Supreme Court states its opinion,” he said, “that’s the law. It’s telling you what the law means and what the court said is that lawyers are allowed to carry guns in court because the law says that officers of the court can carry guns into the courthouse.”

Steinbuch said although the justices ruled that attorneys can legally carry handguns into courthouses, it specifically did not address courtrooms, leaving that question open for now.

“They didn’t say you can’t carry into courtrooms,” he said, “they just said they’re not addressing courtrooms because the plaintiffs, meaning me and the others, didn’t raise it. Actually, we did raise it but then we said never mind, we’re not addressing that cause of action. We’re only pursuing the courthouse cause of action.”

Steinbuch also said that, because of the legal doctrine of collateral estoppal, the attorneys were not sure that Corbitt’s involvement would pass muster with the court, which he said was why he and Motal signed on as parties.

“Our goal was to enforce the rights of attorneys to carry guns in court, and it doesn’t matter in whose name the court rules,” he said. “It was entirely a strategic move.”

Because the ruling did not address the issue of attorneys carrying guns into the courtrooms themselves, Steinbuch conceded that attorneys walking into courthouses armed can potentially be faced with signs on individual courtrooms prohibiting armed entry to attorneys.

“I would bet you a box of doughnuts that’s what you might see, at least in Pulaski County,” he said. “Drive over to, I don’t know, Saline County, it might be something different or maybe not, but I will tell you this: Every judge running for re-election is going to have to decide whether to put up a sign and that, depending on the jurisdiction, could be a campaign issue for them.”