785 S.E.2d 111
N.C. Ct. App.2016Background
- Hughes, Redmond, and Smith were involuntarily sterilized under the historical North Carolina Eugenics Board and died before June 30, 2013.
- In 2013 the General Assembly created the Eugenics Asexualization and Sterilization Compensation Program to compensate qualified victims; a claimant must be alive on June 30, 2013 to qualify.
- The estates filed claims under the Compensation Program; Industrial Commission denied them because each decedent died before June 30, 2013.
- Claimants appealed through the Industrial Commission and then to the Court of Appeals, asserting facial constitutional equal-protection and due-process challenges to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143B-426.50(1).
- After enactment of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-267.1 (effective Aug. 7, 2014), the General Assembly required facial challenges to its acts to be transferred to a three-judge Superior Court panel in Wake County; the Court of Appeals considered whether that scheme divested it of jurisdiction.
- The Court of Appeals held it lacked jurisdiction to resolve the facial constitutional challenges and dismissed the appeals, remanding to the Industrial Commission to transfer the facial-challenge portions to Wake County Superior Court for three-judge-panel resolution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to decide claimants’ facial constitutional challenge to the Compensation Program | Claimants: §143B-426.50(1) violates due process and equal protection; Court of Appeals may review Industrial Commission final orders as an appeal of right | State: §1-267.1 and Rule 42(b)(4) require transfer of facial challenges to a three-judge Wake County Superior Court panel, precluding Court of Appeals review | Held: Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction to resolve the facial challenge; appeals dismissed and remanded to Industrial Commission to transfer the facial-challenge portion to Wake County Superior Court for three-judge-panel review (per §1-267.1 and Rule 42(b)(4)) |
| Whether §1-267.1 and Rule 42(b)(4) apply to proceedings before the Industrial Commission (an administrative body exercising court-like powers under the Tort Claims Act) | Claimants: statutes creating exclusive Wake County three-judge-panel review should not strip this Court of appellate jurisdiction over Industrial Commission final orders | State: three-judge-panel scheme applies to facial challenges to General Assembly acts wherever raised; Industrial Commission acts as a court under Article 31, so transfer provisions apply | Held: §1-267.1 and Rule 42(b)(4) apply; because the Industrial Commission is empowered as a court under the Tort Claims Act and §143B-426.53 incorporates those powers, the transfer scheme governs facial challenges raised after Aug. 7, 2014 |
| Whether facial constitutional challenges may be resolved by the Industrial Commission | Claimants: preserved constitutional issues on appeal; Commission should consider or certify them | State: administrative body lacks authority to declare statutes facially unconstitutional; transfer procedure required | Held: Industrial Commission cannot enter a judgment declaring an act of the General Assembly facially invalid; the Commission must transfer the facial-challenge portion for three-judge-panel resolution |
| Proper remedy for claimants who raised facial challenges after Aug. 7, 2014 | Claimants: seek appellate review on the merits of constitutional claims | State: relief must be obtained through the Wake County three-judge-panel process | Held: Appeals dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction; remanded to Industrial Commission to effect statutory transfer to Wake County three-judge panel; Commission may take further lawful steps to effect transfer |
Key Cases Cited
- Ocean Hill Joint Venture v. N.C. Dept. of E.H.N.R., 333 N.C. 318 (1993) (administrative agencies are not part of the general court of justice for certain Chapter 1 statutes)
- State v. Colson, 274 N.C. 295 (1968) (cases involving substantial constitutional questions are appealable to appellate courts)
- Meads v. N.C. Dep’t of Agric., 349 N.C. 656 (1998) (statute constitutionality is for the judiciary; administrative boards lack power to declare statutes unconstitutional)
- In re Twin County Motorsports, 367 N.C. 613 (2014) (discusses limits on applying Chapter 1 provisions to administrative proceedings)
- Carolinas Med. Ctr. v. Employers & Carriers Listed in Ex. A, 172 N.C. App. 549 (2005) (Industrial Commission lacks authority to resolve constitutional challenges to statutes)