The Arkansas Court of Appeals has upheld a ruling that found Brooklyn and Hunter Hermes in contempt for failing to comply with a court order regarding social media posts. The court's decision, delivered on October 7, 2026, affects the Hermeses and their ability to express their views about Cristin Beene and Central Christian Academy Clubhouse, LLC. This ruling underscores the legal challenges individuals may face when their speech conflicts with court orders.
The case, Brooklyn Hermes and Hunter Hermes v. Cristin Beene and Central Christian Academy Clubhouse, LLC, arose from a dispute over statements made by the Hermeses on social media about the daycare and preschool facility operated by Beene and Central Christian Academy. The court's decision is significant as it clarifies the enforcement of injunctions and the limits of free speech in the context of ongoing legal disputes.
Brooklyn and Hunter Hermes filed their appeal after the Faulkner County Circuit Court found them in contempt of a preliminary injunction issued on February 21, 2025. The injunction required the Hermeses to remove specific social media posts and refrain from further posts about Beene and the academy. The court also awarded Beene and the academy $3,864.50 in attorney's fees and costs related to the enforcement of the injunction. The Hermeses argued that the injunction was void because the plaintiffs did not post the required security as mandated by Arkansas law.
The dispute began when Beene and Central Christian Academy filed a lawsuit against the Hermeses on September 19, 2024, claiming defamation, slander, libel, and tortious interference with business expectancy. In response, the Hermeses filed counterclaims for abuse of process and battery. Following the initial filings, Beene and the academy sought a temporary restraining order and a mandatory preliminary injunction, which the circuit court granted after determining that the Hermeses had not successfully rebutted the plaintiffs' claims of irreparable harm.
The court's February 21 order directed the Hermeses to remove social media posts related to the case and prohibited them from making further posts. However, the order did not require Beene and the academy to provide security, which the Hermeses argued rendered the injunction void. After the Hermeses filed a notice of compliance stating they would adhere to the court's order, Beene and the academy alleged that the Hermeses had not fully complied, prompting the contempt motion.
During the contempt hearing, the Hermeses raised their concerns about the lack of security and the constitutionality of the injunction. The circuit court, however, focused on whether the Hermeses had complied with the injunction and set a show-cause hearing for April 15, 2025. Although the Hermeses later filed a motion to dissolve the injunction, they did not receive a ruling on that motion, and the court ultimately found them in contempt on June 18, 2025.
The court ruled that the Hermeses were in contempt for failing to comply with the injunction, despite having cured their noncompliance before the contempt hearing. The court stated, "The circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the parties’ civil action and authority to consider a request for injunctive relief." The court also affirmed the award of attorney's fees, noting that the circuit court has the discretion to award such fees in contempt proceedings.
This ruling has implications for future cases involving social media and court orders. It highlights the importance of compliance with court directives and the potential consequences of failing to do so. The court's decision reinforces that an injunction remains enforceable unless it is dissolved, stayed, or reversed, even if there are claims about its validity.
Looking ahead, the Hermeses may have options for further legal action. While their appeal was focused on the contempt ruling, they could potentially seek to challenge the injunction through proper legal channels. However, the court's ruling indicates that any such challenge must follow established procedures, including obtaining a ruling from the circuit court.
In conclusion, the Arkansas Court of Appeals' ruling in this case emphasizes the balance between free speech and the enforcement of court orders. It serves as a reminder that individuals must navigate the legal system carefully, especially when their statements may conflict with existing court directives.