REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE
In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision Dobbs that overturned the federal protections for abortion access , state courts have more power than ever to expand or deny reproductive freedom to constituencies. State Supreme Courts have made critical rulings to protect, restrict, or criminalize reproductive health access. Judges who support reproductive freedom have ruled that state constitutions protect the right to an abortion and have shot down restrictions on public funding to reproductive care. And judges who oppose reproductive freedom have upheld total abortion bans, even in cases of life-threatening pregnancies. In 2023, for example, judges on the North Carolina Court of Appeals issued an opinion claiming that “life begins at conception.” This ruling would have jeopardized reproductive health access, including abortion, in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and some forms of birth control, but the judges backed down and withdrew the decision. Although NC has not had a recent abortion t case in front of the state Supreme Court, it’s likely coming. Read more below about how state courts can affect your reproductive access.
CIVIL LIBERTIES
The landmark case of Johnson v. Jessup underscores the pivotal role of North Carolina's judiciary in protecting civil liberties. This case challenged the automatic revocation of driver’s licenses for those unable to pay traffic fines, highlighting the struggle faced by low-income residents. The court's decision emphasized the necessity of considering an individual’s financial situation before revoking their license, ensuring a fairer system that doesn’t disproportionately punish the economically disadvantaged. Although it was a federal court case, this ruling highlights the critical role of the judiciary in upholding your rights and freedoms. Dive into this case and others to see how our courts shape the fundamental rights that affect North Carolina's livelihood.al situation before revoking their license, ensuring a fairer system that doesn’t disproportionately punish the economically disadvantaged. Although it was a federal court case, this ruling highlights the critical role of the judiciary in upholding your rights and freedoms. Dive into this case and others to see how our courts shape the fundamental rights that affect North Carolina's livelihood.
EDUCATION ACCESS
In 1994, School Boards in Cumberland, Halifax, Hoke, Robeson, and Vance counties sued the State, arguing that the school funding system violated the NC Constitution in Leandro v. State. Although the NC Supreme Court has required schools to be equally funded to meet basic education needs, like well-trained teachers and updated resources, the State continues to underfund public schools. The Court has recently decided to rehear this case—for the fifth time—putting the education of North Carolinians at stake. The case underscores the profound impact judicial decisions have on education access and quality in North Carolina. Discover how the courts play a crucial role in shaping the future of our children’s education.
VOTING & DEMOCRACY
North Carolina’s voter ID law, passed in 2018 will impact voting rights across the state. This act mandates voters to present a photo ID at the polls, which the bill’s supporters claim will enhance election security and voter confidence. While proponents argue it's a necessary measure to prevent fraud, critics highlight the barriers it creates for marginalized groups, potentially disenfranchising many. The North Carolina Supreme Court blocked the law in 2022, ruling that it was intended to disenfranchise certain voters. But the justices reversed themselves last year and allowed the law to go into effect. Explore how this pivotal voter ID legislation shapes voter access and why staying informed on such mandates is crucial for protecting North Carolinians' voting rights. Dive deeper into this and other impactful cases that influence our democracy and our fundamental right to vote.
REDISTRICTING
In the pivotal case of Cooper v. Berger, North Carolina's Supreme Court tackled the crucial issue of redistricting, a process that shapes the state's political landscape and impacts every vote cast. This case challenged the legislature's authority to manipulate election districts. The court ruled against the legislature in 2022, emphasizing the importance of fair and transparent redistricting practices and ensuring that electoral districts do not unfairly favor one party over another. However, the court overturned this ruling in 2023 and allowed legislators to unfairly gerrymander districts again. Discover how judicial decisions on redistricting can allow politicians to undermine our democratic process and why your vote for judges is essential in upholding fair representation. Explore more about this and other significant cases affecting redistricting in North Carolina.
LGBTQIA+ RIGHTS
In M.E. v. T.J., a woman in a same-sex relationship was unable to receive a domestic violence protection order after a former partner became physically and emotionally threatening. North Carolina state law limited these protections only to parties in a dating relationship with "persons of opposite sex." The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding the statute, Chapter 50B, as unconstitutional under both the North Carolina Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court established that LGBTQ+ couples cannot be excluded from receiving domestic violence protections in the state of North Carolina. This ruling highlights the critical role of the judiciary in protecting the rights and dignity of LGBTQ+ individuals. Dive into this case to understand how judicial decisions shape the fight for LGTBQ+ rights.
LABOR & ECONOMIC JUSTICE
In NCAE v. State, the North Carolina Association of Educators, 5 tenured public school teachers, and 1 probationary public school teacher brought suit against the State claiming the Career Status Law (a law that entitles a teacher to a basic set of due process protections to ensure that they are treated fairly before being dismissed) was unconstitutional by constituting a taking of property without just compensation under Article I, Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution and as an impairment of contracts in violation of Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution. Historically, teachers could earn career status by completing a probationary period and receiving a favorable vote from the school board. The Career Status Law retroactively revoked the career status of teachers who had earned status through that process. The Supreme Court held that sections 9.6 and 9.7 of the Career Status Law were unconstitutional under the Contracts Clause to the extent they retroactively applied to teachers who had already attained career status as the law impaired the contractual rights of those teachers without adequate justification. Read more below about how state courts can affect your labor and economic justice rights.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
In the recent and impactful case of State v. Walker, North Carolina's Supreme Court examined Kenneth Walker's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, a cornerstone of criminal justice rights. Convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole in 1999, Walker argued that his trial counsel failed to inform him of his right to testify and that his appellate counsel was deficient. The court reaffirmed the standards for reviewing such claims, emphasizing the necessity of proving both deficient performance and resulting prejudice. This decision underscores the critical role of the judiciary in safeguarding fair trial rights and effective legal representation. Dive into this case to understand how criminal justice rulings impact our legal system.
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Several past and current cases highlight how our courts can impact the quality of our environment including cases on victims of hog waste, a liquefied natural gas storage facility, or the disposal of coal ash waste. Importantly, ongoing litigation in State v Berger regards whether the legislature can co-opt gubernatorial appointment authority for boards and commissions, including the EMC, DOT, WRC, and others. The EMC, for example, had established a water quality standard regarding 1,4-dioxane, designated by the EPA as a probable human carcinogen. However, in April 2022, the EMC’s decision was blocked by the NC Rules Review Commission, largely on procedural grounds, and the EMC subsequently filed suit to challenge the RRC’s decision. But after the passage of SB 512, the legislature’s appointees dominated the EMC, which then voted 8-7 to its lawsuit. The Cooper administration challenged the constitutionality of SB 512 and one other statute under a constitutional separation of powers theory. After initially winning a temporary stay, Cooper lost in Superior Court. The matter is now headed to the State Supreme Court and will have far-reaching implications for the balance of powers between the executive and legislative branches with concrete implications for the state’s environmental laws and regulations.