N.C. State Bd. of Educ. v. State
255 N.C. App. 514
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- The State Board of Education (Board), created by the North Carolina Constitution, filed suit seeking a declaration that the Rules Review Commission (Commission) may not review or approve Board rules. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Board.
- Defendants (the Commission and State) appealed, arguing the General Assembly validly subjected Board rules to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and delegated review authority to the Commission.
- The central statutory scheme: Chapter 150B (APA), recodified 1986, defines "agency" broadly and created the Commission to review proposed agency rules before they take effect. The Board is not statutorily exempt.
- The constitutional text at issue: Article IX, Section 5 (Board shall make needed rules and regulations, "subject to laws enacted by the General Assembly"). The Board argues this limits oversight to acts of the legislature (i.e., statutes), not an executive-branch review commission.
- The appeals court examined: (1) whether the 1942 constitutional amendment and subsequent 1970 text permit the General Assembly to require pre‑approval of Board rules under statutes like the APA; and (2) whether delegating rule‑review authority to the Commission violates separation of powers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board rules are subject to statutory review/approval by the Commission under the APA | Board: Article IX, §5 limits interference to "laws enacted by the General Assembly" (i.e., statutes enacted by bicameral passage); review/veto by a statutory commission is not a "law enacted" and therefore impermissible | Defendants: The 1942 amendment and Article IX §5 make Board authority "subject to laws enacted by the General Assembly," and the General Assembly enacted the APA and created the Commission to implement that law, so the Commission lawfully reviews Board rules | Court: Rules promulgated by the Board are subject to statutes enacted by the General Assembly requiring review and approval by the Commission; the 1942 amendment rebalanced power and preserved GA authority to require such procedures |
| Whether delegation of review/approval to the Commission violates separation of powers or is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power | Board: Delegation to the Commission of a constitutionally granted function (promulgating "needed rules and regulations") usurps an express constitutional power and violates separation of powers | Defendants: The General Assembly may delegate a limited portion of its legislative power and provide adequate guiding standards; the Commission's review is procedural and limited (cannot review substantive efficacy) and subject to judicial review | Court: Delegation is constitutional. The APA and enabling statutes provide adequate standards and procedural safeguards; the Commission's role is limited and reviewable, so separation of powers and non‑delegation concerns are not violated |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Whittle Communications, 328 N.C. 456, 402 S.E.2d 556 (N.C. 1991) (addressed Board rule invalidation under statute and declined to decide whether APA applies where statutory conflict exists)
- Guthrie v. Taylor, 279 N.C. 703, 185 S.E.2d 193 (N.C. 1971) (Board rulemaking authority is subject to limitation by acts of the General Assembly; in silence Board may act)
- Adams v. N.C. Dep't of Nat. & Econ. Res., 295 N.C. 683, 249 S.E.2d 402 (N.C. 1978) (legislature may delegate rulemaking/adjudicative powers to administrative bodies if adequate guiding standards are provided)
- N.C. Tpk. Auth. v. Pine Island, Inc., 265 N.C. 109, 143 S.E.2d 319 (N.C. 1965) (recognizes limited delegation of legislative power is permissible in proper instances)
- West Va. Bd. of Educ. v. Hechler, 180 W. Va. 451, 376 S.E.2d 839 (W. Va. 1988) (contrasting authority: invalidated legislative oversight commission review of board rules; relied on different constitutional text and commission composition)
- N.C. State Bar v. DuMont, 304 N.C. 627, 286 S.E.2d 89 (N.C. 1982) (1970 constitutional revision was primarily editorial; used as context for interpreting constitutional changes)