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 suit.
He said the plaintiffs never adjusted their pleadings to reflect such a facial challenge to the current statewide education system. As a result, the justice said, the trial court ceased to have jurisdiction over the case as of 2017. He said every ruling since then is void and dismissed the case in its entirety.
"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.
The Leandro case dates to 1994, when several students, families and school boards of education in low-wealth North Carolina counties sued claiming the state violated their constitutional rights by not providing them with a basic quality of education.
The suit produced two seminal North Carolina Supreme Court decisions in 1997 and 2004 that both established a constitutional right to a "sound basic education" and determined that the state had fallen short of delivering on that promise.
In the decades since, the parties have grappled with how to fix those shortcomings in the state's public education system. Most recently, the state Supreme Court ruled in 2022 that a trial court judge could order the state treasury to disburse funds as part of an at least $5.6 billion remedial plan.
When the lower court subsequently ordered hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for the plan, Republican legislators launched the present appeal. The justices heard oral arguments in 2024, but it took more than two years to issue Thursday's 244-page opinion.
The decision wipes out the high court's 2022 ruling. But Justice Berger said the majority didn't go far enough to expressly disavow the prior opinion, which he called an "unconstitutional assault on the separation of powers and appropriations clauses."
In his concurrence, Justice Berger lamented that the reasoning behind 2022 opinion will remain persuasive, leaving the door open for more education policy and funding lawsuits to be filed in the state.
The separation of powers argument had become a central theme of the litigation in recent years, with Republican lawmakers claiming the trial court had overstepped its bounds by seeking to force the legislative and executive branches to execute the remedial plan.
Justice Newby seemed to agree. Pointing to the earlier Leandro decisions, he said the high court has long cautioned against judicial interference in education policy and emphasized deference to the other two branches of government.
But according to Justice Earls, the reason the case has dragged on for decades is because the court deferred to those branches for so long.
"Only after an undeniable period of deference did this court take the extraordinary step of ordering state officials to transfer funds to safeguard the constitutional right to a sound basic education," she wrote in her dissent. "The shield for constitutional separation of powers would become the sword on which the Leandro right falls."
Justice Earls otherwise assailed the majority's decision to throw out the case based on a "hypertechnicality" and accused her colleagues of betraying their predecessors. She also disavowed the notion that the original claims were limited to a few counties as opposed to applying statewide.
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. She said the majority's glaring errors erode principles of judicial review and constitutionalism, and inflame needless partisanship.
She accused the majority of distorting the facts and history of the case to reach their conclusion, calling their recounting of the first two opinions and the state court bench trial "revisionist history."
The jurist took aim at the majority's contention that technological advancements like personal laptops and smartphones have somehow vitiated the justices' duty to enforce the state constitution. Regardless of a "new style of jeans," the state's obligation to provide a sound basic education must remain constant, she said.
For all the ink spilled today, the court has failed the children of North Carolina, who are the ones who have suffered most through the decades, she said.
"But tides will change, voters will reach a breaking point, and hope springs eternal that democratic demand for a different species of court will soon produce results," she said.
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 criticized the 2021 remedial plan, saying it "isn't actually comprehensive," and no one proved the plan is actually the right one, instead letting government actors impose a flawed remedy.
Justice Dietz 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.
Robb Leandro, the original named plaintiff in the case and now an attorney at Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, told Law360 on Thursday that although the opinion is disappointing, he doesn't see the ruling as the end of the road.
He expects this won't be the last time the courts hear from the state's children on their constitutional right to a sound basic education. "I hope there are thousands more Leandros," he said.
"I see now like a near future, where individual children — there are tens of thousands of them across the state — will move to have their rights enforced individually."
The counties' legal team from Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP called it an "extraordinarily disappointing and troubling decision."
"The majority opinion rewrites the court's past rulings and dismisses the case — leaving the state's children with no remedy — because the 'perfect' procedural posture proved elusive," they said.
Demi Dowdy, spokesperson for North Carolina House Speaker Destin Hall, said in a Thursday statement that House Republicans remain committed to investing in public education.
"Today's decision rightly recognizes the constitutional role of the North Carolina General Assembly, since the state Constitution entrusts sole appropriations authority to the legislature," Dowdy said.
Michael P. Robotti of Ballard Spahr LLP, counsel for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Branch of the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and several at-risk students, told Law360 the decision is a massive blow particularly to minority children, rural children, and English language learners.
"It is a huge loss for education advocates, parents, and students across the state both now and for years to come. It means a 30+ year fight that has involved countless attorneys, taxpayer dollars, and court time comes to an end without a remedy for those at the center of the litigation: North Carolina's schoolchildren," Robotti said.
North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein, a Democrat, denounced the majority's decision in a statement Thursday.
"Education opens doors of opportunity for children, but today the court slammed them in the face of students who deserve the right to a sound basic public education," he said.
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.
Update: This story has been updated with comments and more information from the ruling.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.