Education Access

Deminski v State Bd. of Education

The mother of a child who was frequently bullied and sexually harassed at school alleged that the school failed to act despite her repeatedly reporting the behavior, and as such denied the child’s right to education as guaranteed under the North Carolina Constitution. Plaintiff argued that the behavior constituted harassment, and the school expressed deliberate indifference in enforcing her child’s education. The Supreme Court decided that schools are not immune from liability, and students can raise claims about barriers to education. Furthermore, the Supreme Court stated that the Court of Appeals’ decision to grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss should be reversed because the plaintiff was able to adequately assert a claim of relief. There has not yet been a subsequent decision on the merits.

Farmer v. Troy Univ.

Troy University, a state-run nonprofit based in Alabama, has an office in North Carolina to recruit students for their online program. An employee in the North Carolina Office claimed that he was subjected to sexual harassment, wrongful discharge, and negligent supervision. The Supreme Court found that Troy University could not invoke sovereign immunity because, although it is a state entity, the state-run university consented to engaging in suits when it enjoyed the benefit of conducting business in North Carolina. The school waived sovereign immunity by registering in North Carolina as a foreign nonprofit corporation and engaging in business in North Carolina.

Hart v. State

25 taxpayers challenged the Opportunity Scholarship Program, which allocated revenue from taxpayers to fund scholarships for low-income students to attend nonpublic schools. The trial court declared the program unconstitutional on its face and enjoined implementation of the Opportunity Scholarship Program, including the disbursement of public funds. The Supreme Court found that the trial court incorrectly declared the program unconstitutional because the Opportunity Scholarship Program does not preclude the state from continuing to support the public school system while also supporting outside initiatives to benefit society. To be specific, the Supreme Court held that 1) the program did not violate constitutional requirements for school funding; 2) the program did not violate the uniformity clause of the North Carolina Constitution; and 3) the appropriations made for the program were for a “public purpose.” A key fact was that the program was funded out of the general fund, not by taking funds already earmarked for public schools.

Silver v. Halifax Cty. Bd. of Comm’rs

Plaintiffs, parents from two school districts with a majority Black student population, stated that the Halifax County Board of Commissioners failed to ensure that their children had the right to a sound basic education. They alleged that the Halifax County Board of Commissioners underfunded the school districts in comparison to the district with a 65% White population. The Supreme Court found that while the State has a sole responsibility for guarding and preserving the right of every child in North Carolina to receive a sound basic education, this obligation does not also apply to County Commissioners. The General Assembly has the power to take away a local government’s authority over education, which would leave them with a constitutional obligation to act without the capacity to do so. The Supreme Court also held that the word “may” in the North Carolina Constitution was not created to grant a party a claim of relief or guard rights. However, parents can still bring claims about education access directly against the state.

DTH Media Corp. v. Folt

News organizations brought legal action against the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill (UNC-CH). The News Organizations argued that the school violated the Public Records Act by refusing to release records from sexual misconduct disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court found that releasing the information would not violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) as UNC-CH argued. FERPA, which governs information access for publicly funded educational institutions, mandates that the university share the name of any student over 18, the violation, and the sanctions imposed. FERPA does not require institutions to release the dates of offenses. The statute does not provide discretion to a public university to decide if they will release the records.

State v. Conley

Defendant fired shots at multiple people on school property. Defendant argued that the multiple firearms he had did not justify more than one conviction on the count of “possession of firearms on school property.” The statute at issue here, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-269.2(b), states that it is a felony for “any person knowingly to possess or carry, whether openly or concealed, any gun, rifle, pistol, or other firearm of any kind on educational property or to a curricular or extracurricular activity sponsored by a school.” Looking closely at the statute’s language, the Supreme Court reasoned that the word “any” followed by singular nouns is ambiguous and could be referring to one or multiple items. The Supreme Court applied the Rule of Lenity because of the statute’s ambiguity, meaning that they interpreted the statute in the light most favorable to the defendant. The Supreme Court used this principle to arrive at the conclusion that the statute only allows for one violation. The Supreme Court held that a person can only receive a single conviction under the statute for possession of firearms on school property.

N.C. State Bd. of Educ. v. State

The State Board of Education argued that the statutorily created committee (the “Rules Review Commission”) is unconstitutional. As a result of this newly created Rules Review Commission, the Board was now legally required to submit its proposed rules and regulations to the Rules Review Commission for approval which they alleged impacted their ability to efficiently produce rules governing public education. The Supreme Court held that the Rules Review Commission was rightfully created and given the authority to review Board proposals. The Supreme Court found that the Rules Review Commission had received adequate guidance to review the rules for three reasons. First, the North Carolina Constitution authorized the General Assembly to delegate authority to the Rules Review Commission to review proposed rules. Second, the General Assembly provided sufficient statutory direction concerning the Rules Review Commission’s powers and restrictions regarding its ability to review rules and regulations proposed by the Board such that this delegation of power did not conflict with the State Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA dictates the rules and processes North Carolina agencies must follow. Finally, the Board still has an opportunity to challenge the Rules Review Commission through a declaratory judgement.

State v. Smith

Defendant was accused of sexual activities with an underage student while working as an In-School Suspension and P.E. teacher. Defendant argued for the case to be dismissed because he was not classified as a “teacher,” and therefore could not be charged with engaging in sexual activity with a student. The Supreme Court concluded that the statute was written to protect students from sexual encounters with adults, so titles such as “teacher” should be interpreted functionally. The Supreme Court stated that the facts of the case justify categorizing the defendant as a teacher, noting that the decision was not made by a technical decision regarding title. Defendant worked at the school full time, operated as a substitute teacher, was an employee of the school district, and was teaching P.E. as preparation for becoming a full time teacher.

New Hanover Cty. Bd. of Educ. v. Stein

After releasing hog waste near local lagoons, Smithfield Companies agreed to fund “environmental enhancement activities,” which would be distributed in the form of grants to projects enhancing North Carolina’s environment. Francis X. Deluca and the Board of Education brought suit, arguing that the funds were misappropriated because they constituted penalties for Smithfield’s previous waste pollution. As a penalty, forfeiture, or fine, the funds should have been exclusively given to free public schools. Here, the Supreme Court held that the Board of Education failed to establish a claim for relief for misappropriation of funds. The Supreme Court also held that its decision did not prevent the Board of Education from establishing a new claim in the Trial Division of the General Court of Justice.

State ex rel. Stein v. Kinston Charter Acad.

Kingston Charter Academy (Academy), a charter school, received $600,000 from the North Carolina for the 2013-2014 school year on account of financial difficulties. The amount was based on a higher reported number of students enrolled at the school than there actually was. In response, the state brought suit against the school, as well as the Board Chair under the False Claims Act. The Academy raised a sovereign immunity defense, arguing that it is an instrumentality of the state. The Supreme Court held that charter schools were not intended to be agencies or instrumentalities of the state, and therefore should not be able to assert a sovereign immunity defense. The Supreme Court further concluded that the state had adequately demonstrated a claim of relief by alleging that the estimate of student enrollment qualified as an actionable falsehood under the False Claims Act and that the CEO was not entitled to public official immunity.

Hoke Cty. BD. of Educ. v. State

The Leandro litigation addressed North Carolina’s constitutional obligation to provide children with the opportunity to receive a sound basic education. In 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court upheld judicial authority to direct state funding toward portions of the Comprehensive Remedial Plan. However, after the Court’s membership changed, it revisited the case.

On April 2, 2026, a 4 to 3 majority held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to oversee the statewide challenge because that claim had not been properly pleaded. The Court declared decisions entered after July 24, 2017, including the 2022 Supreme Court decision, void. It vacated the April 2023 funding order and dismissed the entire case with prejudice. A request for rehearing was denied in May 2026.

The decision ended enforcement of the Comprehensive Remedial Plan through this lawsuit. It did not erase the original 1997 recognition that North Carolina children have a constitutional right to the opportunity for a sound basic education.