N.C. State Bd. of Educ. v. State, 371 N.C. 170

Background

The State Board of Education (Board) sued the State and newly elected Superintendent Mark Johnson after the General Assembly enacted Session Law 2016-126 (House Bill 17), which amended education statutes to expand the Superintendent’s administrative authority.
The Board alleged the law unconstitutionally transferred its Article IX, §5 constitutional duties to supervise and administer public schools and education funds to the Superintendent.
A trial three-judge panel granted summary judgment for the State and Superintendent, concluding the statute shifted day-to-day operations to the Superintendent but preserved the Board’s constitutional authority and rulemaking power.
The Board appealed directly to the North Carolina Supreme Court, which granted discretionary review to decide whether the statute facially violates Article IX, §5.
The Supreme Court affirmed: it held that making the Superintendent responsible for “direct supervision and administration” and certain fiscal duties, subject to the Board’s “rules and regulations,” does not on its face strip the Board of its constitutional authority.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Session Law 2016-126 impermissibly transfers the Board’s constitutional duty to "supervise and administer" public schools to the Superintendent	The law reassigns the Board’s constitutionally vested powers to the Superintendent and thus is invalid because constitutional duties cannot be reassigned by statute	The statute merely allocates day-to-day administrative duties to the Superintendent while preserving the Board’s general supervisory and rulemaking authority; the General Assembly may allocate statutory duties	Held: facially valid — statute assigns "direct"/day-to-day administration to the Superintendent but leaves the Board’s general supervisory and fiscal authority intact, subject to rules and regulations adopted by the Board
Whether the Superintendent’s authority to administer educational funds unconstitutionally usurps the Board’s fiscal authority	The Superintendent’s new statutory authority to administer funds transfers the Board’s constitutional control over educational funds	Defendants point out statutory language preserving the Board’s general supervision of educational funds (e.g., §115C-408) and that the Superintendent’s fiscal actions are subject to Board rules and regulations	Held: facially valid — fund-administration provisions subject to Board rules/regulations do not on their face transfer constitutional fiscal authority
Whether repeated references to "rules and regulations" require Administrative Procedure Act (APA) rulemaking (and thus affect constitutionality)	Treating the Board’s rules/regulations as APA rules would constrain the Board and could render some statutory changes unconstitutional	Defendants argue the statute contemplates internal management and policy rules not necessarily subject to formal APA rulemaking; statutes preserve Board oversight	Held: the Court reads "rules and regulations" as generally not requiring rulemaking under the APA for internal governance; Board oversight remains sufficient to preserve constitutional authority
Standard of review and burden for facial challenge	Board: the statute is invalid on its face because it conflicts with the Constitution	State: statutes are presumptively constitutional; a facial challenge must show no circumstances under which statute could be valid	Held: applied strong presumption of constitutionality and the high bar for facial challenges; statute susceptible to interpretation that preserves constitutionality, so it survives facial attack

Key Cases Cited

State v. Camacho, 329 N.C. 589 (1991) (constitutional allocation of powers among entities cannot be rendered nugatory)
Mial v. Ellington, 134 N.C. 131 (1903) (offices created by the Constitution can be altered only by the people in convention)
State v. Lewis, 142 N.C. 626 (1906) (constitutions limit legislative power; construe constitutional text to give effect to each word)
Guthrie v. Taylor, 279 N.C. 703 (1971) (legislature has authority to limit and revise statutory duties of constitutional entities)
Wayne Cty. Citizens Ass’n v. Wayne Cty. Bd. of Commr’s, 328 N.C. 24 (1991) (statutes presumed constitutional; adopt constitutional interpretation when possible)
Beaufort Cty. Bd. of Educ. v. Beaufort Cty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 363 N.C. 500 (2009) (facial challenge is the most difficult challenge; challenger must show no circumstances where statute is valid)
Hart v. State, 368 N.C. 122 (2015) (reiterating the high bar for facial constitutional challenges)