371 N.C. 149
N.C.2018Background
- North Carolina State Board of Education (Board) sued seeking a declaratory ruling that statutory scheme requiring the Rules Review Commission (Commission) to review and approve agency rules is unconstitutional as applied to the Board.
- Board alleged the Commission has objected to or modified every rule it submitted since 1986, causing delays and chilling rulemaking; it dismissed five of seven claims and pursued two as-applied constitutional challenges.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the Board; the State and Commission appealed.
- Court of Appeals reversed in a divided opinion, holding the General Assembly lawfully required Board rules to be reviewed and limited the Commission to procedural review.
- North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed: Article IX, §5 permits the General Assembly to enact laws subjecting Board rules to statutory review; delegation to the Commission is proper because statutory standards and procedural safeguards limit the Commission’s role.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article IX, §5 of NC Constitution bars Commission review of Board rules | Board: Constitution grants Board authority to make rules; "subject to laws enacted by the General Assembly" does not permit non‑legislative Commission review | State/Commission: Board authority is subject to laws; General Assembly may enact statutes delegating limited, procedural review to Commission | Held: Article IX, §5 permits statutory delegation; Commission review valid because it derives from laws to which the Board is subject |
| Whether delegation to Commission violates non‑delegation/separation of powers | Board: Commission review effectively overrides constitutionally‑vested Board rulemaking power and is not a law enacted by the General Assembly | State/Commission: Delegation is permitted where statutes supply adequate standards and procedural safeguards; Commission limited to procedural criteria under §150B‑21.9(a) | Held: Delegation constitutional; statutory criteria and judicial review provide sufficient guidance and safeguards |
| Scope of Commission review (procedural vs substantive) | Board: Even procedural review of Board rules is an unconstitutional encroachment because rulemaking power is exclusively Board’s | State/Commission: Commission’s statutory role is limited to procedural checks (authority, clarity, necessity, proper adoption) and expressly excludes quality/efficacy | Held: Commission limited to procedural review; statute prohibits consideration of rule quality or efficacy, so review is non‑substantive |
| Remedies and reviewability of Commission decisions | Board: Commission’s ability to block rules effectively negates Board’s final adoption step without bicameral enactment | State/Commission: Agency may seek declaratory judgment and judicial review of Commission objections; legislative oversight exists via joint committee | Held: Procedural safeguards (judicial review, oversight committee) make statutory scheme constitutionally permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Guthrie v. Taylor, 279 N.C. 703 (1971) (Board’s rulemaking must be within constitutional/statutory authority)
- State v. Whittle Communications, 328 N.C. 456 (1991) (Board exceeded authority where General Assembly assigned subject to others)
- Adams v. N.C. Dep’t of Nat. & Econ. Res., 295 N.C. 683 (1978) (legislature may delegate regulatory functions if adequate standards/procedures are supplied)
- In re Declaratory Ruling, 134 N.C. App. 22 (1999) (limits on agency review must avoid arbitrary or unreasoned encroachment on legislative power)
- Hart v. State, 368 N.C. 122 (2015) (state Supreme Court reviews constitutional questions de novo)