173284P.pdf   06/15/2020  Jill Dillard  v.  Rick Hoyt
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  17-3284
                          and No:  17-3287
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville   
   [PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author for the Court En Banc, joined by Colloton, 
   Gruender, Benton, Erickson, Stras and Kobes.] 
   Civil case - Civil Rights. Plaintiffs alleged the individual defendants 
   violated plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment rights to informational privacy 
   by disclosing redacted investigatory reports to the media in response to 
   Arkansas FOIA requests. The individual defendants moved to dismiss the 
   Section 1983 damage claims based on qualified immunity. Held, the district 
   court erred in denying defendants' motion to dismiss because the due 
   process right to informational privacy asserted by plaintiffs was not 
   clearly established at the time of defendants' actions. The remainder of 
   the panel's opinion is reinstated. Judge Colloton, concurring. Judge 
   Grasz, with whom Chief Judge Smith joins, concurring in part and 
   concurring in the result. Judge Kelly, concurring in part and dissenting 
   in part. 
  
173284P.pdf   07/12/2019  Jill Dillard  v.  Rick Hoyt
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  17-3284
                          and No:  17-3287
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville   
   [PUBLISHED] [Smith, Author, with Wollman and Grasz, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Civil rights. The City of Springdale and Warren County 
   initiated investigations regarding claims of sexual misconduct by Josh 
   Duggar, a cast member of the TV show "19 Kids and Counting," and 
   interviewed members of the Duggar family, including the plaintiffs, who 
   were minors at the time of the investigation; plaintiffs were promised 
   their statements would be confidential; the City and County later released 
   their reports on the investigation in response to press requests, and the 
   reports contained information which would allow the identification of the 
   plaintiffs. Plaintiffs brought this civil rights and tort action against 
   the City and County and their officials, alleging violations of their 
   constitutional right to privacy and Arkansas tort law; the officials moved 
   for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Held: the defendant 
   officials were not entitled to qualified immunity; the information 
   released about the minors interviewed in the investigation was highly 
   personal and involved the most intimate aspects of human affairs; the 
   information was inherently private and entitled to constitutional 
   protection; the right of the minor victims of sexual abuse not to have 
   their identities and the details of their abuse revealed to the public was 
   clearly established at the time of the release; plaintiffs have 
   sufficiently pleaded intentional torts under Arkansas law, and the 
   officials were not entitled to statutory or qualified immunity on 
   plaintiffs' state law claims at this stage of the proceedings.