The Arkansas Supreme Court recently ruled on the appointment and compensation of Special Justice Cory Cox, who was appointed to fill in for Associate Justice Barbara Webb. This decision, delivered on October 1, 2026, addresses a significant gap in state law regarding how special justices are compensated for their service. The ruling impacts the judicial system and raises questions about the adequacy of compensation for appointed justices in Arkansas.
On August 10, 2026, Chief Justice Baker informed Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders that Justice Webb was temporarily unable to serve. The Chief Justice requested that the Governor appoint a special justice to fulfill Webb's duties for an indeterminate period. Governor Sanders appointed Cory Cox on August 18, 2026, to serve until December 31, 2026, or until Justice Webb returned. This situation led to questions about how to compensate Cox for his full-time service.
The dispute arose from Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-11-115, which outlines the compensation for special justices. According to this statute, special justices who are not retired judges or active circuit judges receive $100 for each case they handle. However, the court found that this statute does not account for extended appointments, such as Cox's, where a special justice must serve full time.
The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that Special Justice Cox's appointment fell outside the scope of the current compensation statute. The court stated, "We conclude that Special Justice Cox’s appointment is outside the scope of Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-11-115, and there is no existing mechanism through which Special Justice Cox can be adequately compensated for his full-time service." This ruling indicates a clear need for legislative action to address the compensation framework for special justices.
Chief Justice Baker and the other justices, including Justices Wood and Womack, concurred with the decision. However, the court also invited the Arkansas legislature to revisit the statute concerning special justice compensation. Justice Rhonda K. Wood, in her concurring opinion, emphasized the need for the General Assembly to consider the adequacy of the $100 per case compensation, which has not been updated in decades.
Justice Wood noted, "Decades have also passed since the General Assembly set the $100.00 per case compensation, which is no longer adequate." She also highlighted the potential implications of Amendment 94 to the Arkansas Constitution, which established the Independent Citizens Commission responsible for setting salaries for justices and judges. Wood suggested that the legislature should explore whether this amendment altered any prior statutory provisions regarding judicial pay.
The ruling has significant implications for the Arkansas judicial system. Special Justice Cox's situation underscores the challenges faced by appointed justices when existing laws do not adequately address their compensation for extended service. The court's invitation for legislative action indicates a recognition of the need for reform in how special justices are compensated.
Going forward, this ruling may lead to changes in the law that could affect not only special justices but also the broader judicial system in Arkansas. If the legislature takes action to amend the compensation framework, it could set a new precedent for how appointed justices are compensated in the future.
As for what’s next, the ruling can potentially lead to legislative proposals aimed at addressing the gaps identified by the court. There is no indication in the opinion of any related cases pending that would impact this decision. However, the Arkansas General Assembly may take up the issue in its next session, considering the court's call for reform.