GOP Control Of State Supreme Court Puts School Funding In Jeopardy

Source: Editorial Board

November 4 brought forth good news for educators, parents, and students across North Carolina, as the state Supreme Court ruled the state must fulfill its constitutional obligation in ensuring every student will receive a comprehensive education.

The 4-3 ruling, with all four Democrats backing the order, in the long-running Leandro school funding case, calls for an increase in investments toward public schools by 2028.

“The state Supreme Court’s Leandro decision confirms to all North Carolinians that we, as a state, will do more — we will do better — and sets forth an evidence-based plan for how and how much North Carolina must invest in our kids, families, and communities today and in the years to come,” shared Mary Ann Wolf in an article on EdNC.

However, Nov. 8 marked a shift in the balance of power on the state Supreme court, as Republicans gained two seats

With Republicans gaining control of the state’s highest court, the future of public education could be in jeopardy. 

Historically, Republicans have vocalized their rejection of the much-needed investment towards public education, going so far as to advocate for the removal and threaten the impeachment of state judges.

Earlier this year, Republican Justice Paul Newby ordered the removal of the late Superior Court Judge David Lee, who oversaw the education funding case, and placed Republican colleague and fellow alumnus, Judge Michael Robinson in the seat. 

The removal alarmed many and called into question the integrity of the state court, as Newby assisted his Republican legislature counterparts in avoiding their constitutional responsibility to ensure a sound, basic education for North Carolina students. 

Despite the conservative shift on the bench, education advocates say the court should continue its previous order and allow the much-needed investments to be enforced.

“To go back and change a historic decision so quickly would really damage the legitimacy of the court,” stated Matt Ellinwood, director of the Education & Law Project at N.C. Justice Center, in an interview with The News & Observer. “People would not know how to follow the laws of the state if it can so easily change based on the makeup of the court.”

Share:

More Posts

 La Corte de Apelaciones Federal Mantiene el Bloqueo al Uso de la Ley de Enemigos Extranjeros por Parte de Trump para Deportar Inmigrantes

Una corte de apelaciones federal ha rechazado la solicitud de la administración Trump para levantar una orden de restricción temporal (TRO) que bloquea el uso de la Ley de Enemigos Extranjeros por parte de la administración Trump para deportar a inmigrantes. La decisión de 2-1 proviene de una demanda presentada por la Unión Americana de Libertades Civiles (ACLU), Democracy Forward y la ACLU del Distrito de Columbia.

¡Únete a la Lucha por los Derechos de los Pacientes con Planned Parenthood!

El miércoles 2 de abril, la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos escuchará los argumentos orales en el caso Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, un caso de Carolina del Sur que decidirá si el gobierno puede impedir que las personas que usan Medicaid accedan a los servicios de Planned Parenthood, como anticonceptivos, exámenes de cáncer y otros servicios rutinarios de salud sexual y reproductiva. Este caso pone en riesgo el acceso a la atención médica para millones de personas que han confiado en Planned Parenthood para servicios de salud sexual y reproductiva.