John Tyson

Judge John M. Tyson’s N.C. Judicial Branch biography says he earned a B.A. in English and Secondary Education from the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, a J.D. from Campbell University School of Law, an M.B.A. from Duke University, and an LL.M. in the Judicial Process from the University of Virginia School of Law. It also says he attended the New York University Institute of Judicial Administration’s Appellate Judges’ Seminar.

The same N.C. Judicial Branch biography says Tyson served on the North Carolina Court of Appeals from 2001 to 2009 and returned to the court in 2015. His prior experience includes private practice, corporate counsel roles, real estate and business law, service as an emergency superior court judge, service as a recall judge on the Court of Appeals, and work as a probation and parole officer and certified public school teacher before law school.

A N.C. Judicial Branch announcement on Tyson’s appointment to the North Carolina Dispute Resolution Commission says he has been a certified superior court mediator since 1992, a certified appellate mediator since 2003, and a certified U.S. District Court mediator since 2009. A Campbell Law alumni profile says Tyson was a member of Campbell Law’s inaugural graduating class in 1979 and has taught at Campbell Law for decades.

(Source: N.C. Judicial Branch biography; N.C. Judicial Branch Dispute Resolution Commission announcement; Campbell Law alumni profile)

No specific Tyson-authored appellate opinion directly addressing congressional redistricting, legislative redistricting, racial gerrymandering, or partisan gerrymandering was located.

Tyson’s public candidate materials describe a broader judicial philosophy that may shape how he approaches constitutional and election-related disputes. In an INDY Week candidate questionnaire, Tyson described himself as “a textualist and an originalist” and said judges should decide cases based on the law, not on personal opinions, political views, or individual beliefs. This is a public candidate statement, not a redistricting opinion.

This record suggests Tyson may approach redistricting-related disputes through textualist and originalist constitutional interpretation if such cases come before him. Because no direct Tyson-authored redistricting opinion was located, this should be described as a general judicial-philosophy record rather than a redistricting-specific position.

(Source: INDY Week candidate questionnaire; N.C. Judicial Branch Appellate Court Opinions database)

Tyson sat on the Court of Appeals panel in Griffin v. North Carolina State Board of Elections, the 2025 election dispute involving challenged ballots in the 2024 North Carolina Supreme Court race. The panel issued a divided decision addressing election protests, notice and probable cause, voter-registration information, voter ID, federal election law, military and overseas voters, curable deficiencies, and remedies.

In Griffin v. North Carolina State Board of Elections, Tyson was part of the panel majority with Judge Fred Gore, while Judge Toby Hampson dissented. Because the majority opinion was unsigned and Tyson did not write separately, the case reflects his participation in the panel majority rather than an individual Tyson-authored election-law opinion.

Tyson also authored Craven v. SEIU COPE, a 2008 case involving political campaign mailings, defamation, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and political speech. The opinion affirmed dismissal of claims arising from political campaign materials. Together, these records suggest Tyson’s voting and democracy record includes both election-contest procedure and protection for political campaign speech, with close attention to procedural posture and the legal limits of civil claims in election-related contexts.

(Source: Griffin v. North Carolina State Board of Elections, N.C. Court of Appeals, 2025; Craven v. SEIU COPE, N.C. Court of Appeals, 2008; INDY Week candidate questionnaire)

On Criminal Justice

Tyson has authored criminal opinions involving motions to suppress, traffic checkpoints, impaired driving, Miranda issues, witness cross-examination, jury selection, sentencing, ineffective assistance of counsel, juvenile life-without-parole sentences, and criminal statutory interpretation. In State v. Macke, he authored a 2021 opinion involving a traffic checkpoint, DWI, the State’s police power, the fundamental right to travel, and Fourteenth Amendment challenges.

In State v. Monk, Tyson authored a 2025 opinion involving non-Mirandized statements, a suppression motion, trafficking charges, cross-examination about witness charges, and ineffective assistance of counsel. In State v. Murphy, he authored a 2025 opinion involving statements made to a social worker, custodial interrogation, Miranda arguments, and Fifth and Sixth Amendment claims.

Tyson also authored State v. Benton, a 2025 case involving a Batson challenge, jury selection, race-neutral explanations, and the deferential standard applied to trial court determinations of purposeful discrimination. These records suggest Tyson’s criminal justice approach often emphasizes procedural preservation, trial court discretion, constitutional thresholds, and close application of statutory and evidentiary standards.

(Source: State v. Macke, N.C. Court of Appeals, 2021; State v. Monk, N.C. Court of Appeals, 2025; State v. Murphy, N.C. Court of Appeals, 2025; State v. Benton, N.C. Court of Appeals, 2025)

Tyson dissented in Batson v. Coastal Resources Commission, a 2022 case involving the Coastal Resources Commission, coastal permitting, environmental administrative review, settlement, and attorney’s fees. The case involved petitioners who had challenged coastal permitting issues and later sought attorney’s fees after the matter was remanded and settled.

Tyson’s dissent focused on jurisdiction, preservation, statutory authority for attorney’s fees, and the limits of a superior court’s authority when sitting as a reviewing appellate court. He would have vacated and remanded for dismissal of the petitioners’ motion for attorney’s fees. This record suggests Tyson’s approach in environmental administrative cases may emphasize procedural requirements, statutory authority, and jurisdictional limits rather than broad environmental policy outcomes.

The N.C. Judicial Branch Appellate Court Opinions database also lists a 2025 Tyson-authored opinion involving the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, the Division of Water Resources, animal waste management system permits, and Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking requirements. That listing suggests additional environmental administrative-law work, though it should be described as agency-permitting and rulemaking work rather than a direct environmental-justice ruling focused on unequal pollution burdens.

(Source: Batson v. Coastal Resources Commission, N.C. Court of Appeals, 2022; N.C. Judicial Branch Appellate Court Opinions database, 2025 DEQ animal waste permit listing)

Tyson’s civil-liberties record includes opinions involving free speech, public access to government records, protest and political speech, prior restraints, criminal procedure, jury selection, and constitutional limits on government action. In State v. Desperado’s, Inc., he authored a 2006 opinion holding that a county noise ordinance functioned as an unconstitutional prior restraint because officials had unguided discretion over special-event permits. The opinion vacated the defendants’ convictions.

In Beaufort County Board of Education v. Beaufort County Board of Commissioners, Tyson authored an opinion involving a gag order entered during public-school funding litigation. The Court of Appeals vacated the gag order, concluding the trial court erred by restricting the parties and attorneys from communicating with the media without adequate findings supporting such a restraint.

Tyson also authored DTH Media Corp. v. Folt, a 2018 case involving the Public Records Act, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, student disciplinary records, and FERPA. These records suggest Tyson’s civil-liberties record includes meaningful attention to free speech and government transparency, especially where procedural requirements and statutory text define the scope of public access or government restriction.

(Source: State v. Desperado’s, Inc., N.C. Court of Appeals, 2006; Beaufort County Board of Education v. Beaufort County Board of Commissioners, N.C. Court of Appeals, 2007; DTH Media Corp. v. Folt, N.C. Court of Appeals, 2018)

On Education Access

Tyson dissented in North Carolina State Board of Education v. State, a 2017 case involving the constitutional authority of the State Board of Education, the Rules Review Commission, separation of powers, and control over rules governing North Carolina’s free public school system. The majority held that State Board rules were subject to review by the Rules Review Commission.

Tyson’s dissent argued that the General Assembly had not constitutionally delegated authority over State Board rules to the Rules Review Commission and emphasized the State Board’s constitutional role in supervising and administering the public school system. This record suggests Tyson may read the State Board of Education’s constitutional authority as more independent from legislative oversight than the majority did in that case.

Tyson also authored Beaufort County Board of Education v. Beaufort County Board of Commissioners, which arose from public-school funding litigation between a school board and county commissioners. The opinion focused on a gag order and public speech, not the merits of school funding adequacy. Taken together, these cases suggest Tyson’s education-related record focuses on constitutional governance, school-system authority, and public transparency in school funding disputes rather than direct Leandro-style education adequacy remedies.

(Source: North Carolina State Board of Education v. State, N.C. Court of Appeals, 2017; Beaufort County Board of Education v. Beaufort County Board of Commissioners, N.C. Court of Appeals, 2007)

Tyson dissented in M.E. v. T.J., a 2020 Court of Appeals case involving whether a person in a same-sex dating relationship could seek a domestic violence protective order under Chapter 50B. The majority held that excluding same-sex dating partners from domestic violence protections violated equal protection principles.

Tyson’s dissent argued that the appeal should be dismissed on procedural and jurisdictional grounds, including voluntary dismissal, failure to preserve the constitutional issue, failure to join necessary parties, and notice-of-appeal issues. His dissent did not become the majority ruling.

This record suggests Tyson may be less willing to reach LGBTQ-rights merits when he identifies threshold procedural or jurisdictional defects. Because his dissent focused on procedure rather than a full merits analysis of equal protection for same-sex dating partners, it should not be described as a broad Tyson-authored ruling on all LGBTQ rights.

(Source: M.E. v. T.J., N.C. Court of Appeals, 2020)

No Tyson-authored appellate opinion was located involving abortion access, abortion restrictions, contraception, or reproductive healthcare regulation.

Tyson authored State v. Wiggins, the 2003 appeal involving Rae Carruth, which included convictions for conspiracy to commit murder, firing into occupied property, and using an instrument with intent to destroy an unborn child. The case addressed jury selection, trial procedure, and criminal-law issues arising from violence against a pregnant person.

This case is reproductive-justice-adjacent because it involved criminal charges related to harm to an unborn child, but it was not an abortion-access, contraception, or reproductive-healthcare case. The available record suggests Tyson has addressed pregnancy-related harm through criminal law, not through reproductive autonomy or healthcare-access doctrine.

(Source: State v. Wiggins, N.C. Court of Appeals, 2003; N.C. Judicial Branch Appellate Court Opinions database)

On Labor & Economic Justice

Tyson has authored opinions involving workers’ compensation, unemployment benefits, business disputes, public employment, real estate, and economic claims. In Taylor v. Southland Industries, Inc., he authored a 2024 workers’ compensation opinion involving calculation of an injured employee’s average weekly wage, the statutory methods for calculating compensation, and review of the Industrial Commission’s award.

In Simmons-Blount v. Guilford County Board of Education, Tyson authored a 2007 opinion involving a public school teacher’s unemployment benefits after resignation from employment. The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the trial court’s decision affirming disqualification from benefits.

Tyson’s N.C. Judicial Branch biography also describes extensive pre-judicial experience in private practice, real estate, business law, corporate counsel work, and mediation. His labor and economic justice record suggests a strong focus on statutory formulas, administrative review, employment classifications, procedural requirements, and the evidence supporting agency or commission decisions.

(Source: Taylor v. Southland Industries, Inc., N.C. Court of Appeals, 2024; Simmons-Blount v. Guilford County Board of Education, N.C. Court of Appeals, 2007; N.C. Judicial Branch biography)