Courtney Hudson

Background: [arcourts.gov]

• Justice Courtney Hudson was elected to the Arkansas Supreme Court in 2010 and again in 2018. In 2008 she was elected to the Arkansas Court of Appeals. She was the first candidate to be placed on the ballot by petition of Arkansas voters.
• "At the Supreme Court, she has served as the supervising justice for the Client Security Fund, the Arkansas Code Revision Committee, and the Committee on Security and Emergency Preparedness." 
• Received J.D. from University of Arkansas School of Law 
• Justice Hudson clerked for late Judge Terry Grabtree and Judge Frank Aery.
• Justice Hudson has three children and lives in Fayetteville Arkansas.
• Former President Bill Clinton supported her 2010 campaign. 

Judicial Philosophy:

• "In the courtroom, the Constitution is my north star. I believe the AR Supreme Court must always be a place where the Constitution is upheld and the rule of law carries the day." [campaign website]

Public Statements:

• "Let us honor the life of former United States Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who blazed a trail for women not just in the law, but at the heights of power." [Facebook post December 1, 2023]
  
• "The NAACP Pine Bluff Branch banquet was a big success, and I especially enjoyed spending time with my dear friend, Officer James Murry, and his wonderful family." [Facebook post October 25, 2023]
  
• "My kids and I soaked in the good vibes along with my colleagues on the court as we listened to the Notorious RBG." [Facebook post September 6, 2019] 
• "I've taught my children that what is popular is not always what is right. A good judge, like a good parent, knows the difference and makes the tough decisions." [campaign page]
  

Notable Cases:

• In re Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic/Vaccine Eligibility (2021): Signed the unanimous order that the governor immediately make the COVID vaccine available to Arkansas judges, lawyers, and juries (1-2). Court found "[i]t is the duty of this court to define the essential workers within the justice system and where each should be placed in the priority schedule." (1)
• Smith v. State (2020) Wrote majority. Argued "...the circuit court erred in presenting to the jury the death of Allbright's unborn child as an aggravating factor, and Smith's trial attorneys were ineffective when they abandoned this argument." (5) (see Wood's dissent for further information.) The court stated, "the question we must answer is whether the General Assembly properly provided for the 'unborn child' definition of 'person' to be applied when an aggravating factor in capital-murder sentencing is being considered. The answer is no. The legislature did not permit the section 5-1-102(13)(B) definition of a 'person' to apply in the determination of an aggravating factor for capital-murder sentencing. In fact, the General Assembly specifically restricted the use of this definition. This we cannot ignore." (4) "The fact that the General Assembly expressly applied the definition of 'person' found in section 5-1-102(13)(B) to the homicide statutes but not to other parts of the criminal code compels us to conclude that the section 5-1-102 (13)(B) definition of a 'person' must be confined to the homicide statutes. If the General Assembly had intended the section 5-1- 102(13)(B) definition to apply to section 5-4-604, it would have included language to that effect. See Bolin v. State, 2015 Ark. 149, 459 S.W.3d 788." (5)
  
• In re Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic (2020): Signed majority order that (with certain caveats) landlords must argue that their property is not included in the CARES Act before evicting their tenants (1). 
• Miller v. Thurston (2020): Joined Wynne's 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).
  
• Myers v. Yamato Kogyo Co. (2020) Joined 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).
  
• Arkansas Department of Veterans Affairs v. Mallett (2018): Wrote a dissent. Argued that she had previously voted to uphold Andrews despite her issues with it because of stare decisis. Stare decisis is meant to lend stability to the law (6). Since the majority in this case only made the understanding of the law more confusing Justice Hudson dissented. Argued that the majority's holding conflicted with Flis' precedent that sovereign immunity be an affirmative defense (7). Argued that this case may lead those in the future to plead defenses after the required time. (8)
• Smith v. Pavan (2016): Signed Hart's majority opinion. Involved key issues. Held that Obergefell did not speak to the constitutionality of birth certificate's contents (9) and 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 because parenthood is distinct from marriage status (16).
  
• Smith v. Pavan (2017): Signed Baker's dissent. Involved key issues. Argued that the case should not be remanded to the circuit court. Said that the AR Supreme Court's previous ruling should be vacated, the circuit court's ruling should be reversed, and the law at issue should be declared unconstitutional (4). Argued that it is not the role of the court to 'take up a pen and set off through the Arkansas Code replacing the words husband' and 'wife' with 'spouse' or other gender-neutral alternatives"-- that is the legislature's job (5)
• Protect Fayetteville v. City of Fayetteville (2017) Joined Justice Hart's majority opinion. Involved key issues. Held that state law preempted a local law against SOGI discrimination (1-2).