Hoke County Board of Education v. State, 367 N.C. 156

Plaintiffs (school boards, parents/guardians, and intervenors) challenged 2011 changes to North Carolina’s prekindergarten program for at-risk four‑year‑olds enacted in the 2011 budget (subsections 10.7(f) and 10.7(h)).
Trial court (Wake County) found 10.7(f) (a purported cap on percentage of at‑risk children) and 10.7(h) (a co‑payment requirement) unconstitutional and ordered that no eligible at‑risk four‑year‑old be denied admission to NC Pre‑K.
State appealed to the Court of Appeals; while that appeal was pending, the General Assembly amended subsection 10.7(f) and repealed 10.7(h) in 2012 legislation.
The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and dismissed in part; the State sought discretionary review in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court considered whether the 2012 amendments rendered the controversy moot and whether it should reach the constitutional questions addressed below.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 2011 changes (10.7(f) cap and 10.7(h) co‑payment) violated the State Constitution under Leandro/Hoke County	2011 provisions unlawfully curtailed pre‑K access for at‑risk children, violating the constitutional guarantee of a sound basic education	The State defended the legislative changes as lawful budgetary policy and subject to legislative discretion	Trial court found those specific 2011 provisions unconstitutional, but Supreme Court did not reach merits (see mootness)
Whether the appeal is moot after the 2012 legislative amendments that materially changed/repealed the challenged provisions	Plaintiffs argued relief was still required because underlying Leandro obligations remain and the trial court’s remedy should be preserved	State argued the 2012 amendments materially altered the challenged provisions, removing the live controversy and making the appeal moot	Supreme Court held the 2012 amendments were material and substantial; the appeal was moot, so it dismissed the appeal, vacated the Court of Appeals opinion, and instructed vacatur of the trial court’s order

Leandro v. State, 346 N.C. 336 (recognizing constitutional guarantee of opportunity for a sound basic education)
Hoke Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. State, 358 N.C. 605 (reaffirming Leandro duty)
State v. McCluney, 280 N.C. 404 (intervening repeal/revision of statute renders constitutional challenge moot)
In re Peoples, 296 N.C. 109 (mootness doctrine when controversy ceases to exist)
Messer v. Town of Chapel Hill, 346 N.C. 259 (dismissal and vacatur where intervening events moot appeal)