North Carolina’s Supreme Court has decided against expediting appeals regarding two lawsuits filed by Democratic Governor Roy Cooper. These legal challenges were made against new laws that diminished Cooper’s authority to select members for various boards and commissions. The Supreme Court’s orders released on Friday rejected requests from Republican legislative leaders to hear the cases immediately without waiting for the Court of Appeals to first consider and rule on the arguments.
Cooper’s attorneys had urged the court not to grant the requests, and the Supreme Court’s decisions could prolong the process leading to final judgments on the constitutionality of the board changes enacted by the GOP-controlled General Assembly in late 2023 despite Cooper’s vetoes. The Court of Appeals has not scheduled dates for oral arguments, and briefs are still being submitted.
One of the lawsuits challenges a law transferring the governor’s authority to select election board members to the General Assembly. A panel of trial judges previously invalidated the election board changes, stating that they impede the governor’s ability to ensure election integrity. Despite the blocked changes, the current election board system remains intact, with the governor responsible for appointing all five state board members.
In another lawsuit, Cooper sought to block the composition of various boards and commissions, arguing that they limit his control over enforcing state laws. While a panel of judges halted the implementation of new membership structures for some boards, the makeup of five other commissions remained unchanged.
Additionally, the majority of justices dismissed Cooper’s requests for Associate Justice Phil Berger Jr. to recuse himself from the cases. Cooper had raised concerns due to Berger Jr.’s father, Senate leader Phil Berger, being named as a defendant in both lawsuits. However, the court ruled that Justice Berger’s participation did not violate the judicial conduct code, as his involvement was solely in his official capacity as Senate leader in cases challenging state laws’ constitutionality.
The court’s two registered Democrats, Associate Justices Allison Riggs and Anita Earls, disagreed with the majority’s decision, asserting that Justice Berger Jr. should have recused himself based on the familial connection outlined in the code’s language.
