The landmark litigation — which established a standard for "sound, basic education" in the Tar Heel State — morphed from a case about the educational rights of students in five poor counties into a "full-scale, facial assault on the entire educational system," Chief Justice Paul Newby, a Republican, wrote in the majority opinion. Six other counties ultimately joined the litigation.
He said the plaintiffs never adjusted their pleadings to reflect such a facial challenge to the state's current education system. As a result, the justice said, the trial court ceased to have jurisdiction over the case as of 2017, and every ruling since then is consequently void.
"Judges are not experts on education policy. We cannot account for the various policy alternatives or public opinion," Justice Newby wrote. "Our consideration of cases is limited to the facts and evidence in the record and the dispassionate application of the law. In short, the judicial branch is not the venue in which to seek education policy reform."
The justices split 4-3, with Republican Justice Phil Berger concurring with the majority. Dissents were penned by Justices Anita Earls and Allison Riggs, both Democrats, and Republican Justice Richard Dietz.
Thursday's opinion wipes out the high court's 2022 decision that affirmed a remedial plan to improve the state's public education system and ordered the state to provide funding for the plan.
But Justice Berger said the majority didn't go far enough to expressly disavow that decision, which he called an "unconstitutional assault on the separation of powers and appropriations clauses" in his concurrence.
In her dissent, Justice Earls said the decision to throw out the case was based on a "hypertechnicality," and she accused the majority of betraying their predecessors' decisions that affirmed every student in North Carolina has a right to a sound basic education.
"I would stand by the law of this case and the constitutional protections that belong to every schoolchild," she wrote. "The judiciary can and must safeguard these rights, and the trial court did have subject matter jurisdiction to direct the state to remedy its ongoing constitutional violations. I dissent."
Justice Riggs joined Justice Earls' dissent and penned her own in which she lambasted her colleagues for the two-plus years it took them to issue an opinion after hearing oral arguments in 2024.
Justice Dietz, meanwhile, opined that he saw a path to put the case "back on track" and disagreed with the majority that the trial court lacked jurisdiction.
"I see no basis to dismiss this proceeding with prejudice and unwind decades of progress in remedying this constitutional violation," he wrote.
In his dissent, he proposed procedural fixes such as joining the legislature as a defendant, converting the case to a class action on behalf of public school students, and designating a trial court judge in "every judicial district, if not every county" to serve as a "Leandro judge" for that area.
The counties are represented by Melanie Black Dubis and Catherine G. Clodfelter of Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP and H. Lawrence Armstrong Jr. of The Armstrong Law Firm PA.
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education is represented by Neal A. Ramee and David B. Noland of Tharrington Smith LLP.
Intervenors Rafael Penn et al. are represented by Christopher Brook of Patterson Harkavy LLP, Michael P. Robotti of Ballard Spahr LLP and Maya Brodziak and Chavis Jones of The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
The state is represented by Jeff Jackson and Daniel P. Mosteller of the North Carolina Department of Justice.
The North Carolina State Board of Education is represented by Todd Russell of the North Carolina Department of Justice.
The legislative intervenors are represented by Matthew F. Tilley, Michael A. Ingersoll and Emmett Whelan of Womble Bond Dickinson.
Amici professors are represented by Jane R. Wettach of the Duke University School of Law.
The case is Hoke County Board of Education v. State, case number 425A21-3, in the North Carolina Supreme Court.
--Editing by Marygrace Anderson.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.