The future of education in NC could be decided by the state Supreme Court

If the past is any precedent, Justice Allison Riggs or Judge Jefferson Griffin will likely have a say over future decisions about the state’s public education system. 

When North Carolina voters head to the polls in November, they’ll not only vote for president, governor, attorney general, and a bunch of other important federal, state, and local races. They’ll also decide who will sit on the North Carolina Supreme Court — and with it, has final say over the future of many key issues in the state, including public education.

Voters’ choice in November will be between current Justice Allison Riggs, a Democrat, and Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin, a Republican.

Riggs is a former civil rights attorney who spent nearly a decade and a half working for the Southern Coalition for Justice, a group that works on a variety of issues that include criminal justice reform and voting rights. She was appointed to the Court of Appeals by Governor Roy Cooper in December 2022, and appointed to the NC Supreme Court by the governor following the retirement of Justice Mike Morgan last September.

Griffin is a Captain in the North Carolina Army National Guard, and did tours in Iraq, Kuwait, and Jordan. He worked as an Assistant District Attorney in Wake County before his appointment as a district court judge in Wake County by former Governor Pat McCrory. Griffin was elected to the Court of Appeals in 2020.

@cardinalandpine

In November’s State Supreme Court election, @justiceallisonriggs will face Judge Jefferson Griffin of the Court of Appeals. In an interview, Riggs highlighted the differences between her and her opponent on reproductive rights, citing Griffin’s role in a decision last year stating that “life begins at conception,“—one of the key underpinnings of the anti-abortion movement. #northcarolina #ncpolitics #abortion #abortionban #ncabortion #roevwade #abortion #abortionrights

♬ original sound – Cardinal & Pine

How Riggs or Griffin could affect the future of public schools

In 1997, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled in Leandro v. State that under the North Carolina Constitution, students in the state were entitled to a “sound, basic education,” and ordered the legislature to fully fund public schools to ensure this happened, though it did not prescribe a specific amount of funding to be provided.

The case began as a suit that was filed in Vance, Cumberland, Robeson, Halifax, and Hoke Counties by the school districts and parents of students. The parties argued that students in their county’s public schools did not have equal access to an education, and the court agreed. 

The ruling stated that students were entitled to an education that gives “…children and youth with all the opportunities necessary to become an adult.” This included ensuring students could speak, read, and write in English, as well as having basic knowledge of certain subjects, including history, math, and physical science. The court also defined a ‘sound basic education’ as one that prepares a student to attend college or vocational school.

Despite the Court’s ruling, the legislature refused to implement the Leandro decision, prompting the court to reaffirm its initial ruling in 2004 and again in 2022, supporting the original decision.

In the 2022 opinion, the Supreme Court upheld a 2021 ruling from Wake County Superior Court judge David Lee, a Democrat, ordering the legislature to provide $1.7 billion in additional funding to the state’s public schools to fulfill the ‘sound basic education’ requirement.

The Republican-controlled legislature declined to do so, and in October 2023, the Court—which flipped from a Democratic majority to a Republican majority after the 2022 elections—voted 5-2 to rehear Leandro for a fourth time after Republican Speaker of the House Tim Moore and Senate Pro Tempore Phil Berger petitioned the Court to hear the case again. 

Justice Riggs, along with fellow Democrat Anita Earls, dissented and voted against rehearing the case.

The Court heard oral arguments in the case in February, and is expected to issue its ruling in the near future. The outcome could have serious implications for the future of public school education funding moving forward, and have implications for challenges to the legislature’s power.

Griffin voted against funding Leandro as a member of the Court of Appeals

While Griffin wasn’t involved in the NC Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling to rehear Leandro, he was involved in a separate ruling on the case.

After Judge Lee’s ruling in Nov. 2021, the case was appealed to the Court of Appeals. The following month, Griffin voted with the majority of the Appeals Court to reverse Lee’s ruling and block the state from being required to provide the $1.7 billion in funding to public schools. 

In a 2-1 decision, Griffin and a fellow Republican judge ruled that because the General Assembly did not approve the funding amount, courts could not order state agencies to spend the money. 

Given Griffin’s position on Leandro as an appellate court judge, it is possible, if not likely, that he would issue a similar ruling as a member of the Supreme Court. 

Implications for school funding

When the Court makes its next ruling in the Leandro case, it will have lasting implications as to what the General Assembly can be compelled to do by the courts. 

During February’s oral arguments, Justice Riggs asked the attorney representing the legislature if it was ever appropriate for the courts to require the legislature to fulfill its constitutional obligation to educate students.

“Is there never going to be a situation, based on your theory of subject matter jurisdiction, where we can tell the state you have to appropriate money to solve this problem, even if the trial court finds that lack of funding is what is leading to these Leandro violations?” she asked. 

In his dissenting opinion in the 2022 Leandro ruling, Justice Berger argued that education policy and funding powers were the legislature’s alone, essentially answering ‘No’ to Riggs’ question about the Court’s power to compel the legislature.

“The state constitution explicitly recognizes that it is for the General Assembly to develop educational policy and to provide for its funding in keeping with its legislative authority,” he wrote.

Beyond this, Berger argued that the Court’s 2022 decision effectively made justices legislators themselves, and argued the decision to order the legislature to fund the schools was unconstitutional.

“Under no circumstance, however, should this Court take the astonishing step of proclaiming that “inherent authority” permits the judiciary to ordain itself as super-legislators. This action is contrary to our system of government, destructive of separation of powers, and the very definition of tyranny as understood by our Founding Fathers,” he concluded in his dissent.

Looking ahead

If the upcoming Leandro ruling reverses the 2022 decision ordering the legislature to fully fund schools, or the majority rules the Court does not have the power to compel the General Assembly to fund the state’s public schools, it wouldn’t only reverse nearly 30 years of precedent, but will likely mean that as long as the current Republican majority is in place, challenges to the legislature’s decision not to fully fund education likely won’t find a receptive audience on the state’s highest court.

While this November’s election will not affect the outcome of that ruling, it could help determine the outcome of  future rulings related to the Leandro case or other education lawsuits.

Democrats cannot  win a majority on the court this year, but the election of either Riggs or Griffin will determine the long-term makeup of the Court. If Riggs wins, Democrats will have won an election on the Court for the first time since 2018, and have an opportunity to cut into the GOP majority in 2026 and flip it in 2028.

If Griffin wins, it will give the Republicans a 6-1 majority on the Court, and likely solidify their control of it for the next decade.

@cardinalandpine

Bias and corruption aren’t just problems for the federal courts. 🧑🏻‍⚖️ Senior Editor Billy Ball takes a minute to explain the BIG problem with NC’s state Supreme Court, and why elections for these seats are so crucial. Please share! 🎥:Billy Ball/Shaun Sindelman for Cardinal & Pine #NCPolitics #NCSupremeCourt #Bias

♬ original sound – Cardinal & Pine