It is an ancient principle of natural justice that courts must interpret the meaning of laws and regulations in an independent and unbiased manner. That’s why, in addition to carrying a pair of scales, Justice is usually depicted wearing a blindfold. In disputes between citizens and administrative agencies, however, a legal doctrine called judicial deference strips off the blindfold and puts a thumb on the scales by requiring courts to “defer” to the agencies’ own, self-interested interpretation of the relevant laws and regulations.
The doctrine was initially adopted by the federal courts in the middle of the 20th century to clear the way for the creation of the modern administrative state. Later in the century, many state courts—including state courts in North Carolina—adopted it as well. That should never have happened here. Unlike the United States Constitution, the North Carolina State Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to a fair trial before an impartial tribunal. Article I, Section 18 declares that “right and justice shall be administered without favor.” [Emphasis added.]
In a friend of the court brief filed last spring, the John Locke Foundation urged the North Carolina Supreme Court to repudiate judicial deference doctrine and make it clear that “the power and the duty to interpret laws and regulations rest with the courts rather than with regulatory agencies.” I’m delighted to report that in a pair of remarkably erudite and well-reasoned opinions by Justice Richard Dietz, the court has done just that.
In August, in Savage v. NC DOT, the court repudiated the doctrine that courts should defer to administrative agencies’ interpretation of statutory law. After explaining that, “’De novo’ is a Latin phrase meaning ‘fresh’ or ‘anew,’” the court said:
[W]e expressly disavow the use of … agency deference when interpreting state statutes, overrule any previous … case law to the contrary, and instruct all lower courts to apply traditional de novo review to the interpretation of state statutes.
Last week, in Mitchell v. UNC Board of Governors, the court did the same for administrative agencies’ interpretation of their own regulations:
North Carolina courts have a constitutional duty to interpret the law and cannot defer in that role to the other branches of government. … [C]ourts interpreting state administrative regulations must freely substitute their judgment for that of the agency and employ de novo review. [Quotation marks and citations omitted.]
This is a huge victory for the rule of law in North Carolina. Last year, Americans across the country celebrated when—in Loper Bright—the United States Supreme Court repudiated judicial deference with respect to administrative agencies’ interpretation of federal statutes. Happily for us, the North Carolina Supreme Court has gone further and repudiated judicial deference to administrative agencies’ interpretation of their own regulations as well. All North Carolinians who care about justice should be celebrating now!
For more information see:
Why North Carolina should eliminate judicial deference to state agencies
Restoring the right to a fair trial in North Carolina
