Arkansas judge doesn’t immediately rule on bid to settle suit between Griffin, Corrections board

The Pulaski County Courthouse in an undated file photo. (Photo by Antoinette Grajeda/Arkansas Advocate)

by Ainsley Platt, Arkansas Advocate
May 4, 2026

A Pulaski County circuit judge didn’t immediately rule Monday on Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin’s motion to dismiss his public records lawsuit against the state corrections board, teeing up further legal wrangling over a settlement agreement current and former board members say violates their due process rights. 

Arkansas Board of Corrections endorses laws it’s been challenging under settlement

The brief hearing on what is typically an uncontroversial legal move — a voluntary dismissal by the party who filed the lawsuit — saw Judge Timothy Fox pass over the dismissal request. Fox instead told attorneys to file briefs on whether to grant former Board of Corrections Chairman Benny Magness’ and current board member Lee Watson’s motion to intervene in the case.

Magness and Watson said in their motion that the settlement names them as public records law violators “despite the fact that both Proposed Intervenors vehemently deny the allegations and have not been afforded any opportunity to contest the allegations against them.”

Fox appeared to lean toward allowing the intervention during Monday’s hearing. He initially granted their motion, which was filed Friday, from the bench before deciding to allow attorneys to file written briefs in advance of a ruling. 

The settlement in question is one of two approved last month by a 4-3 vote of the Board of Corrections that would end two related legal battles between the panel, Griffin and Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders. 

Under the settlement debated Monday, the board agreed to admit it violated the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, the state’s public records and meetings law. The agreement specifically says Magness and Watson admitted to facts constituting FOIA violations during a legislative hearing in 2024.

Fox said the decision to hold off on granting the dismissal was necessary to determine if the settlement affected Magness and Watson, who claimed in their intervention motion that they were not involved with the negotiations over the settlement despite being named in it.

Arkansas Advocate is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Andrew DeMillo for questions: info@arkansasadvocate.com.