Rhonda Wood

• St. Vincent Med. Grp. v. Baldwin, 2023 Ark. 151, 675 S.W.3d 862 (2023) Justice Wood authored the opinion. The Court "reverse[d] and remand[ed] because the court abused its discretion in concluding that the predominance prerequisite of a class action had been satisfied." (1) The Court found that the circuit court's interpretation of the Act was erroneous. The Court held "existing patients and affected patients are not synonymous terms—not all 'existing patients' were 'affected patients' as the circuit court erroneously concluded." (7) The Court "f[ound] that 'affected patients' means those 'existing patients' who were harmed because of the healthcare provider’s failure to provide the patient with his or her physician’s new practice location or misled the patient about the new practice." (7) "Section 204(a) of the [Patient Right-to-Know Act, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 20-6-201] states that if a healthcare provider has made a new practice location available to an entity the entity cannot: (1) mislead any patient about the health care provider’s new practice location or contact information or (2) fail to provide a patient with the health care provider’s new practice location or contact information when requested." (2) "Section 204(b) states that when requested by a healthcare provider who is relocating his practice, an entity shall within twenty-one days (1) provide the healthcare provider with a list of the provider’s existing patient names and addresses or (2) send notice with the new practice location to the provider’s existing patients." (2) "The Act further provides that an “affected patient” may seek injunctive relief for violations under the Act. Ark. Code Ann. § 20-6-206(a)." (2)
• Macklin v. Arkansas Dep't of Hum. Servs., 2021 Ark. 151, 624 S.W.3d 869 (2021). Macklin v. Arkansas Dep't of Hum. Servs., 2021 Ark. 151, 624 S.W.3d 869 (2021). Justice Wood authored a dissent. The majority held that a circuit court erred when it denied Macklin’s “motion to prohibit the Arkansas Department of Human Services (ADHS) from immunizing M.S. over her objection.” (1) Justice Wood argued; however, that the majority expanded the list of types of medical care that required a court order when a child is in foster care. Justice Wood wrote, "[t]he Supreme Court of Arkansas applies the law; we do not make the law. Here, the General Assembly placed only three limits on the type of medical care that requires a court order when a child is in foster care: removal of bodily organs; withholding life-saving or life-sustaining treatment; and amputation. That’s it. Vaccinations were simply not on the list. That was the only issue for the juvenile court to decide. The statute and issue raised were plain and uncomplicated. The juvenile court refused to enter a court order to immunize or not to immunize because the legislature had not assigned it that role. It’s not our job either. The majority today expands the statutory list to include immunizations. Those of us in dissent may agree this might be good policy, and we might even believe the legislature may take that step in the future—but it’s not our role to forecast the legislature’s decisions We cannot take a piece of legislation, decide it’s lousy, and rewrite it. If the statute reflects poor policy, the people of Arkansas, through their elected representatives, must act…To paraphrase Justice Scalia, a good justice must be willing to make decisions she does not like and to apply the law regardless. One must begin with the text of the statute and apply principles of statutory construction….[T]he majority’s decision violates stare decisis. The majority’s decision is flawed[.]" (10). (1) "[I]t violates our primary rule of statutory construction, which is to interpret a statute according to its plain meaning. This is always the court’s first step. The majority skips the plain-meaning step and jumps to legislative intent. But the statute’s plain language comes first. We resort to legislative intent only if the statutory language is ambiguous. No ambiguity exists here. And the majority identifies none in its opinion" (10-11) (2) "The majority further offends the rules of statutory construction by, without ever identifying an ambiguity, grafting the legislative intent of an inapposite immunization exemption in the Education Code onto the Juvenile Code’s medical-authorization statute. This is despite the Education Code’s plain language explicitly stating it applies only to school and daycare enrollment.” (11-12). Justice Wood further argued that (3) the majority violated stare decisis by overturning the precedent of Leeka v. State (2015), which held that the State was "required to prove a culpable mental state because DWI offense is part of the Arkansas Criminal Code rather than the transportation and motor vehicle section" (13) Justice Wood concluded that, "It cannot be overstated that the outcome of this case revolves around judicial philosophy. If we are interpreting a statute, we must uniformly employ our principles of statutory construction. That path creates transparent results for the bar and the public. Judges must forgo the desire to error-correct legislation. The majority takes a different path. It leaps over the statute’s plain language, finds no ambiguity, imports legislative intent from a different code section, and then violates stare decisis. This dissent stays rooted in the role of the judiciary as interpreters of the law, not makers of the law" (14).
• Myers v. Yamato Kogyo Co., Ltd., 2020 Ark. 135, 597 S.W.3d 613 (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). 

Justice Wood's is a member of the Federalist Society. She spoke at Federalist Society events including in 2017 "Supreme Court Preview" and in 2021 "Originalism and Supreme Court Advocacy Event"

Justice Wood “described herself as a ‘conservative, nonactivist jurist.’” 

In an interview about Wood's podcast and in the context Justice Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearings, Wood said, "I think it's part of the purpose of the podcast. It's for us to explain that our decisions are not about politics. They're about how we interpret the Constitution and the law..."

Justice Wood said in an interview with the Garland County Library that one of the most common misconceptions about the judicial system and the Supreme Court is that judges sway the outcome of a case. She said there have been so many times when she has ruled to keep something on the ballot and then personally voted against it. She added, "I think that, you know, people have the impression that [they'll] hear that I wrote an opinion that it's like 'Justice Wood is against this' or 'Justice Wood is for this.' It has nothing to do with what I personally feel... we just have to follow the law."

Campaign Website:

• Wood described her philosophy as a "Conservative Judicial Philosophy"  stating, "“When I first ran for the Supreme Court, I pledged to bring Arkansas values to our state’s highest court – faith, family, hard-working, conservative values.  Throughout my time on the bench, I’ve done just that, making tough decisions in the face of immense pressure. As a member of the court, I will always uphold the rule of law and the Arkansas Constitution will be my guide.”
• Wood's Priorities:
  • Making the court system more citizen-focused and business-friendly
  • Implementing new tools to fight human trafficking and reduce domestic violence; 
  • Continuing juvenile justice reform efforts to reduce juvenile crime and recidivism; and 
  • Ensuring all Arkansans have access to fair and impartial courts; and 
  • Updating criminal rules on speedy trials and reducing criminal backlogs while protecting constitutional rights. 

Wood's interview with Capitol View TV.

What it Takes: A Statistical Analysis of Arkansas Supreme Court’s Petition for Review Process. 2022 UA Law Review 44 

See How We Read II.. 26 Green Bag 2d 61 (2022).

See How We Read. 24 Green Bag 2d 227 (2021).

Contributed to Arkansas Bar Association, Arkansas Public Health Bench Book (2009). 

Ballotpedia gave Wood a confidence score of “Mild Republican” 

Notable Cases Continued:

• Thurston v. League of Women Voters of Arkansas, 2022 Ark. 32, 639 S.W.3d 319 (2022). Justice Wood authored a concurrence. Justice Wood “wr[o]te separately to address the importance of interpreting the constitution according to its original meaning" (7). Justice Wood noted that Board of Trustees v. Andrews marked a return to the original understanding of article 5, section 20 of the Arkansas Constitution (which says "The State of Arkansas shall never be made defendant in any of her courts") (7). Justice Wood argued that the section had been taken out of context and was originally intended to limit monetary damages against the State while allowing declaratory and injunctive relief against state officials acting unconstitutionally (7). Justice Wood wrote, "We should first look to the constitutional text. If uncertainty and ambiguity exist, we can then consider the text according to its original meaning" (8). "[N]o historical document suggests the provision’s original meaning stripped power from the people to hold their government officials accountable" (13). "Sovereign-immunity absolutism would decimate the judicial branch and render Arkansas’s separation-of-powers perilously asymmetrical. The framers would have abhorred this imbalance" (14). "My originalist interpretation adheres to the original intent to provide citizens with more protection and to restrict governmental abuse. For the above reasons, I will continue to apply the plain language and original meaning of the Arkansas Constitution and allow our citizens to seek declaratory and injunctive relief when state officials act illegally" (16).
• 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 stated that "[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), without any explanation or even citation supporting that claim. It appears that the court invented a duty where no duty or right existed. 
• In re Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Signed Womack's dissent. Argued that the court lacked authority to effectively change Arkansas's eviction laws (1). Originalist element: Said that the legislature has exclusive authority to decide how to bring state laws in line with federal requirements (2). Good element: Raised concerns over the court deciding a constitutional question before a case even came before the court (2).