Robin Wynne
Non-Partisan | Arkansas
Candidate Profile
Leans Originalist
BIOGRAPHY
Name
Robin Wynne
Party
Non-Partisan
Election Year
2022
Election
Primary
Race
Supreme Court, Position 2
Incumbent
Yes
Links
EDUCATION
Candidate did not provide
WORK & MILITARY
Candidate did not provide
AFFILIATIONS
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES HELD
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES SOUGHT
Candidate did not provide
Race
OTHER INFORMATION
Justice Wynne has served on the Arkansas Supreme Court since 2015. Before that, he served on the Arkansas Court of Appeals since 2011.
From His Campaign Website:
- Justice Wynne said that he swore an oath to uphold the US Constitution, Arkansas Constitution, and the laws of Arkansas, and that he has done that since joining the bench in 2015. He said that he has applied the rule of law to each of the court's cases.
Notable Cases:
- Miller v. Thurston (2020): Wrote majority opinion. Held that the Secretary of State correctly rejected two ballot petitions because their certification language failed to comply with the law's requirements (2, 7-9). Petitioners had paid canvassers to collect signatures supporting the petitions; however, the Secretary of State dismissed the petitions because the canvassers had not performed criminal background checks on the canvassers as required by the applicable statute. Cited that "The first rule in considering the meaning and effect of a statute is to construe it just as it reads, giving the words their ordinary meaning and usually accepted meaning in common language" (7).
Myers v. Yamato Kogyo Co. (2020): Signed Justice Womack's majority opinion. Held that certain parent companies were protected from liability concerning the death of an employee of their child company (1-2). Held that the Court could not defer to an executive agency's interpretation of the statute because doing so "transfers the job of interpreting the law from the judiciary to the executive" in violation of separation of powers. Cited Protect Fayetteville v. City of Fayetteville (2019) that the judicial branch has the “power and responsibility to interpret the legislative enactments.” (5). Held that the language of the statute clearly indicated that the legislature meant for a clause to only modify its antecedent because it had been set off from the rest of the objects in the sentence through a disjunction (8). Held that this interpretation was confirmed by the "rule of the last antecedent" as described in Barnhart v. Thomas (2003) (7-9).
Macklin v. Arkansas Department of Human Services (2021): Signed Justice Webb's majority opinion. Held that the circuit court improperly dismissed a mother's (whose daughter "M.S." had been found dependent-neglected and removed from her custody) petition to prevent her daughter from being vaccinated over her religious or philosophical objection (1). The circuit court which adjudicated M.S. dependent-neglected held, "This Court maintains its refusal to make a ruling prohibiting DHS from immunizing this child. As DHS is the legal custodian of the juvenile, the Department can make medical decisions that are in the best interest of the child" (3). Held that the case was ripe despite DHS communicating to Macklin that it did not plan to vaccinate M.S. as long as she was in foster care because that communication was not part of the circuit court's record and therefore could not be considered on appeal (5). Held that, instead, the record showed that DHS planned to immunize M.S. if her medical evaluation recommended it (6). Held that, while the General Assembly passed Ark. Code Ann. § 6-918-702 requiring vaccination for admittance to licensed day care centers, public or private schools, "in enacting this wide-reaching immunization mandate, the General Assembly has also provided for exemptions from immunization if 'the parents or legal guardian of that child object thereto on the grounds that immunization conflicts with the religious or philosophical beliefs of the parent or guardian.' Ark. Code Ann. § 6-18-702(d)(4)(A). Accordingly, our legislature has recognized that the State’s interest in promoting the health and safety of its children must yield to the rights of parents to make fundamental decisions in the lives of their offspring. In the case before us, Macklin exercised her right to exempt M.S. from immunization, as was her right as a parent. It is the role of the General Assembly, not the courts, to establish public policy... We therefore reverse and remand..." (9).
Smith v. Pavan (2016): Signed Justice Hart's majority opinion. Held that a law preventing both members of a same-sex couple from having their names listed on a baby's birth certificate did not violate the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause as interpreted in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) because parenthood is distinct from marriage status (9, 16).
- Bentonville School District v. Sitton (2022): Signed Justice Kemp's majority opinion. Reversed the circuit court's temporary restraining order prohibiting Bentonville School District from enforcing its mask policy (1). Held that case was not moot because the policy qualified for the exception for "issues that raise considerations of substantial public interest which, if addressed, would prevent future litigation" (6-7). Held that parents who brought the suit demonstrated a justiciable controversy (8). Held that the parents had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of the case because the policy did not violate the parents' constitutional rights and the school district had the authority to put the policy in place (9-13). On the former, the Court cited Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), which said that the proper framework applicable in the context of a public health crisis was a two part test examining whether the policy had a "real or substantial relation" to the public health crisis and whether the policy was "beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion” of the parents’ rights (10-11). Held that the policy survived this analysis because the policy was designed to combat COVID and because the Supreme Court held in Prince v. Massachusetts that the government "has a wide range of power for limiting parental freedom and authority in things affecting the child's welfare" and in Mahanoy Area Sch. Dist. v. B.L (2021) that "schools at times stand in loco parentis" (11). On the latter, the Court held that the school district properly authorized its policy because the Arkansas Constitution Article 14, Section 1 states that "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" (12). Cited multiple cases that school directors have "implied powers" and "a broad discretion is vested in the board of directors of each school district in the matter of directing the operation of the schools" (12-13). Held that statutes "allow for a school’s broad authority to determine its policies" (13). Held that parents did not show that they would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a temporary restraining order (14). Therefore, held that the circuit court abused its discretion in granting the temporary restraining order (14).
QUESTIONNAIRE
VALUES
I agree with Critical Race Theory (CRT) which asserts that the institutions in the United States are fundamentally racist.
Did not answer
Judeo-Christian values established a framework of morality that is necessary for our system of limited government.
Did not answer
Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.
Did not answer
What types of pro bono work have you done?
Did not answer
ABOUT YOU
Have you ever been convicted of a felony or been penalized in either civil or criminal court for sexual misconduct? If so, please explain.
Did not answer
What education or experience qualifies you to hold the office for which you seek election?
Did not answer
Why should the voters choose you?
Did not answer
I voted in these primaries and general elections:
Did not answer
JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY
Justices should not interpret the federal and state constitutions as living documents, but should use a textualist and originalist approach to interpretation.
Did not answer
What is the proper use of legislative history in interpreting statutory law?
Did not answer
Which current or past U.S. Supreme Court justice best reflects your judicial philosophy?
Did not answer
How should a court address the balance between public health and individual freedoms in the time of a pandemic?
Did not answer
In light of the case Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include a prohibition on sexual-orientation discrimination, which justice’s opinion most closely aligns with your own opinion?
Did not answer
What role (if any) does a judge have in maintaining the separation of church and state?
Did not answer
Religious liberty is at risk in the United States and deserves the highest level of protection in the law.
Did not answer
When should a judge overturn past court decisions?
Did not answer
How should a judge determine which rights are protected by the Constitution even though they are not specifically mentioned?
Did not answer
What legal principles should a court consider when evaluating parents’ objection to their child obtaining medical procedures or drugs designed to affirm the child’s desired gender?
Did not answer
What principles should guide a court’s analysis of whether your state’s constitution gives terminally ill patients a right to assisted suicide?
Did not answer
Would you describe your judicial philosophy as originalist, living constitutionalist, or something else?
Did not answer
