It's 5.05 and welcome in to a Wednesday edition of the Carolina Journal News Hour, News Talk 1110-993 WBT. I'm Nick Craig. Good morning to you.
Well, back late last week, a federal appeals court ruled that a majority of President Donald Trump's tariffs are illegal. The court voted 7-4 to allow tariffs to remain in place through October the 14th, so a little over a month from now, giving the Trump administration time to appeal with the United States Supreme Court. This is the same Court of Appeals that lifted the block issued by the Court of International Trade. That's the CIT, earlier this year. Trump and the folks within the Trump administration argue that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the IEEPA, of 1977 grants him the authority to continue to impose these widesweeping tariffs.
According to the opinion from the DC-based appeals court, they wrote, quote, we affirm the CIT's holding that the trafficking and reciprocal tariffs imposed by the challenged executive orders exceed the authority delegated to the president in the IEEPA text. We also affirm that the CIT grants of declarative relief that the orders are invalid as contrary to law. The president responded to this ruling in a post on Truth Social late last week, writing, quote, all tariffs are still in effect. Today, a highly partisan appeals court incorrectly said that our tariffs should be removed, but even they know that the United States of America will win in the end, the president continued with his statement.
Some tariffs, however, not all, such as tariffs on the automotive industry, steel, and other sectors will not be impacted as they were implemented under different laws and not the sweeping emergency economic powers act. According to Jeanette Doran, senior counsel for the John Locke Foundation, she told the Carolina Journal: The federal circuit's ruling in VOS selections versus Trump is a win for the rule of law and for economic stability. At issue was whether the President could use emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs without Congress's approval. The court gave the correct answer, which is no. According to Doran, Congress, not the President, has the authority to regulate commerce and impose taxes under the United States Constitution.
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act was never intended to grant the President sweeping tariff powers. Its purpose was to authorize targeted sanctions in response to defined national security threats. By invoking IEPA to justify broad tariffs, the administration stretched the law far beyond its original scope, according to Dorin. With her telling the Carolina Journal, quote, the appeals court safeguarded both our constitutional order and the economic stability that families, workers and businesses rely on every day. This is a standard worth defending.
We have talked about tariffs a lot over the last six months or so on a variety of industries across the state of North Carolina. We've got some additional details on this appeals court ruling and some of the backstory as to how we got here. That is available over on our website this morning, CarolinaJournal.com. That headline story: federal court rules Trump tariffs illegal. Those details over at CarolinaJournal.com, where it's now 509, News Talk 1110-993 WBT.
We've been tracking a legal story for the last couple of months here on the Carolina Journal News Hour. A couple of parties involved: State Treasurer Brad Breiner, the North Carolina legislature, and Governor Josh Stein dealing with appointments to the Utilities Commission and some judicial appointments in the state of North Carolina. To bring us up to date this morning, Mitch Kokai of the John Locke Foundation joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour. Mitch, this is a pretty high-stakes legal challenge ongoing in the state of North Carolina with some pretty big implications. What's the latest that you're tracking?
It certainly does have big implications, and remember that this is a lawsuit that initially pitted. Governor Josh Dine against Republican legislative leaders on three different topics. One was a piece of Senate Bill 382 from 2024 that changed the limitations on who Josh Stein could appoint to statewide judicial vacancies.
So, for the Court of Appeals and State Supreme Court, basically, Governor Josh Stein has been able to appoint anyone he wants. Or he could appoint anyone he wants if there were a judicial vacancy. And this law says that if there is a vacancy and the person who is leaving was elected representing a political party, that the governor would have to appoint someone from that same political party, and it would be limited. to one of three names being presented. by the political party.
So that basically would place a lot of restrictions on who the governor could appoint to fill one of those judicial vacancies. One of the other changes, also involved in Senate Bill 382, takes away one of the governor's appointments. He has three, or he had three before the law took effect, three appointments to the Utilities Commission. It would take one of those appointments away, give that appointment to the state treasurer Brad Briner, and also take away the governor's ability to appoint the chair of the Utilities Commission. Then there was the third piece that came from another bill that changes the way that the state building code council has to operate in terms of what makes up a quorum and what kind of vote it would take to actually pass legislation.
The governor lumped all three of those issues into one lawsuit. Put it forward. A three-judge panel issued a kind of a split ruling in this case. Basically, it ruled that the Judicial vacancies issue, they ruled in favor of the governor, saying that the legislature encroached. on what the governor's authority is for making these judicial appointments.
But on the other two issues, the Utilities Commission appointment and the Building Code Council changes, the three judge panel ruled in favor of the legislature.
Now, because the governor won in one respect and the legislature won in the other respect, and by implication, also Treasurer Brad Briner won on that piece. Both sides appealed. And so there's a different approach to how this appeal should take place. Brad Briner. Asked for an expeditious resolution of this appeal.
He filed for a motion to try to get this thing resolved pretty quickly. And his argument was that he made his appointment to the Utilities Commission. The Utilities Commission is now moving forward with the two gubernatorial appointments to. Legislative appointments and the treasurer's appointment. And he was worried, Treasurer Bryner was, about there being some sort of Feeling of illegitimacy if this was not resolved, and that at some point it could be changed so that the appointment would go back to the governor.
Asked for the Court of Appeals to rule very quickly. On the other hand, The argument from Governor Josh Stein is to delay action in this case and wait for another ruling in a different lawsuit pitting the governor against the legislature over seven different boards and commissions. Basically, the governor's argument being that There's no reason. For us to do all kinds of briefing and get prepared for this case when we know that the State Court of Appeals is already going to issue a ruling in a separate case that could affect this case. And so The two different modes of thought about how to move forward.
The treasurer, with the support of the General Assembly, wanting to get this case resolved pretty quickly. On the other hand, the governor wanting to wait until the State Court of Appeals rules on a separate case that could have implications for this case. And at this point, the Court of Appeals has not said yet. whether it's good to take one side or the other. And, Mitch, I'm glad you bring up some of those other legal challenges.
We've talked about those over the last couple of months here, probably six months or so here on the show. This is an overall broader strategy, I would think, I might argue, of Republicans in the General Assembly flexing their muscles a little bit on what the state constitution actually says over who is responsible for appointments to a variety of commissions and utilities. Talking about the Utilities Commission this morning and this most recent legal challenge that we're following, this is kind of a broader approach, though, however, by the GA. It certainly is. We also saw it with the Elections Board moving elections board appointments from the governor to the state auditor.
And in all of these cases, the General Assembly is saying: look, the Constitution makes us the lawmaking body. We are the legislative branch. And unless the Constitution specifically says that we cannot take one of these steps, then we can. The governor's counter argument is: look, the executive authority is within the office of the governor, and the governor needs to have the ability to make these sorts of appointments or make these sorts of decisions as spelled out in the Constitution, giving him the executive authority. Then the counter to that counter argument is: wait a minute, we don't have a unitary executive in North Carolina.
We have an executive where the power is split among several elected statewide executive offices, including the state auditor who's overseeing elections now, and including the state treasurer who now gets this utilities commission appointment.
So it will be very interesting to see how the Court of Appeals and probably ultimately the state Supreme Court comes down on this. Does the General Assembly get the power that it's been flexing in recent months? Or do the courts step in and say, no, you're overstepping, and the governor really does have a valid legal argument here? It's obviously something that will keep you up to date right here on the Carolina Journal News Hour. You can also read continued coverage on not only this legal challenge, but some of the others that have pit the Republican-led General Assembly against Democrat Governor Josh Stein.
Those are available on our website, CarolinaJournal.com. We appreciate the update this morning. Mitch Kokai from the John Locke Foundation joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour. At blinds.com, it's not just about window treatments. It's about you, your style, your space, your way.
Whether you DIY or want the pros to handle it all, you'll have the confidence of knowing it's done right. From free expert design help to our 100% satisfaction guarantee, everything we do is made to fit your life and your windows. Because at blinds.com, the only thing we treat better than windows is you. Shopblinds.com, Labor Day Mega Sale happening now. Save up to 50% site-wide plus a free measure.
Rules and restrictions may apply. Progressive knows we all crave validation. Girl, you are not 37. I would have guessed 27. You guys are too sweet.
Sure, dewy skin. Terrific. Um, is something wrong, Ned? Why would you ask? Just because today marks my 10th anniversary without a car accident or even a speeding ticket?
But somehow, tonight's all about your skincare. Wow. With Snapshot from Progressive, you can get a personalized rate based on how you drive. And that's all the validation you need. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliate Snapshot not available in California from all agents surcharge possible for unseat driving.
When you bundle renters and auto with Progressive, you can save while protecting your most valuable possessions, like your priceless vinyl collection. Sure, you sleep on a futon because the money most people would have spent on a bed you spent on more records. But forget the fact that you can stream just about any song ever created for a few dollars a month. No, no, you need to listen to music in the most difficult way possible.
So, go ahead and get progressive so you can save while protecting the things that matter to you. Progressive Capital Insurance Company and affiliates and other insurers are not available in all scheduled situations. It's 522. Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour. News Talk 1110-993.
WBTOFU. Remember back a few weeks ago, we talked about a new study that showed out of 10 cities that are potential contenders to become the home of a possible major league baseball team as discussions over expansion continue in the very prominent baseball organization, Raleigh and Charlotte are strong contenders. The study analyzed and compared the cities based on feasibility and economic impact that an MLB team could have on each city. The report breaks down each city's feasibility as a potential contender, and it is influenced by multiple factors, including population size and growth. income levels, the size of the media market, and proximity to existing baseball and MLB teams, and perhaps most critically, the ability to secure a dedicated MLB stadium based on the report's analysis.
Raleigh and Charlotte are North Carolina's two big powerhouse cities commanding national and global attention with rapid growth. We'll start at the Queen City. Charlotte has risen as the nation's second largest financial hub. And at the same time, Raleigh thrives as a major technology hub across the United States, supported by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC State, Duke, and others. Together, both of those cities reflect the state's growing influence.
Population growth is also a significant factor in attracting an MLB team. While overall rankings remain steady through 2050, Raleigh stands out with a projected 45.8% increase, second to only San Antonio, Texas, while Charlotte ranks sixth according to the study. Both cities are expected to outpace Nashville, which is a key Southern rival, as MLB discusses the possibility of expansion. Income levels also are another factor in the study as higher household earnings boost ticket demand. Among the 10 MLB contender cities, Charlotte and Raleigh place fourth and fifth in average weekly wages at $1,060 for Charlotte and $1,015 for Raleigh according to the study.
Media market sizes at another level for 24 through 2024 and 2025. Charlotte ranks third and Raleigh ranks a fourth among the 10 various cities that are potentially in the running for this, rising nationally to 21st and 22nd in terms of their media market. And many folks argue one of the largest has to do with the feasibility of a stadium. Raleigh has two main prospects, one known as Downtown South, And the other, also in an area near the Lenovo Center where the Carolina hurricanes play, looking at some other areas across the state of or looking at some other areas across the state Charlotte also, of course, in the discussion with a couple of facilities or potential spaces available to grow an MLB team, according to the study, a new baseball stadium would cost somewhere between one and two billion dollars. State and local governments traditionally cover much of the expense recuperating that money through economic growth.
That's through private or investor-led funding, if possible. Ownership models also matter as most teams are currently privately held, though the Braves have been a publicly traded team in the Major League Baseball system since 2023.
However, in a recent column by John Locke Foundation board member John Hood, he noted that decades of academic research show that public funding of ballparks, stadiums, and other sporting arenas do not inherently bring the promised economic benefit. Hood says that state and local governments do not derive sufficient return on their investment in terms of job creation and financial gain to justify a significant payout.
So again, we're talking about potentially a $1 or $2 billion investment. He says that that money spent on advertising of products would have been, or he says rather, that spending money on other products would have been better spent on other goods and services in the market, and that taxpayers, in fact, would get a better ROI if the funds were invested in public services, such as things like public safety, education, or infrastructure. Other factors in the study looked at schedule, competition, professional performance, and others, given that both Raleigh and Charlotte already host professional and collegiate sport teams, which is an important consideration for the MLB schedule that they could overlap with an existing sporting calendar, particularly those of popular ACC programs in the Raleigh-Durham area. Major League Baseball runs from April through September, with playoffs and World Series potentially extending into October and the early months of November. Charlotte, on the other hand, has demonstrated strong support for professional sporting teams, with the Panthers averaging 70,000 fans per game in their 75,000-seat stadium for about three decades, except, of course, during the COVID-19 season, which happened in 2020.
The Hornets drawing around 17,000 per game despite a 42% winning record, and Charlotte FC setting the MLS's single-game attendance record while remaining among league leaders. Even the Charlotte Knights, a minor league baseball team, have continued to post impressive attendance numbers, sometimes leading all of minor league baseball teams.
So this continues to be an interesting discussion as the MLB commissioner recently was on a ESPN broadcast talking about the expansion of major league baseball, talking about either expansion and potentially some geographic realignment within the league. North Carolina does have two cities again, Raleigh and Charlotte, in the top 10 cities that could be feasible for those expansions or relocations. As the news continues to track on this and as we get some more maybe concrete support for where the league is looking, we'll continue that coverage over on our website, CarolinaJournal.com. Progressive knows we all create validation. Girl, you are not 37.
I would have guessed 27. You guys are too sweet. Sure, dewy skin. Terrific. Is something wrong, Ned?
Why would you ask? Just because today marks my 10th anniversary without a car accident or even a speeding ticket? But somehow, tonight's all about your skincare. Wow. With Snapshot from Progressive, you can get a personalized rate based on how you drive.
And that's all the validation you need. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliate Snapshot not available in California from all agents surcharge possible for unseat driving. When you bundle renters and auto with Progressive, you can save while protecting your most valuable possessions, like your priceless vinyl collection. Sure, you sleep on a futon because the money most people would have spent on a bed you spent on more records. But forget the fact that you can stream just about any song ever created for a few dollars a month.
No, no. You need to listen to music in the most difficult way possible.
So go ahead and get progressive so you can save while protecting the things that matter to you. Progressive Title Team Insurance Company and affiliates and other insurers, not available in all statistical situations. Progressive knows we all crave validation. Girl, you are not 37! I would have guessed 27.
You guys are too sweet. Sure, dewy skin. Terrific. Um, is something wrong, Ned? Why would you ask?
Just because today marks my 10th anniversary without a car accident or even a speeding ticket? But somehow, tonight's all about your skincare. Wow. With Snapshot from Progressive, you can get a personalized rate based on how you drive. And that's all the validation you need.
Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliate Snapshot not available in California from all agents. Surcharge possible for unsafe driving. It's 5:35. Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, News Talk 1110-993, WBT.
Well, it is set to be an interesting month or so as a federal appeals court late last week ruled that a majority of President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs across the globe are illegal.
However, that court did vote also seven to four to allow those tariffs to remain in place through october the fourteenth, giving the Trump administration time to file an appeal with the United States Supreme Court. This is the same court that lifted the block earlier this year issued by the Court of International Trade. Trump argued that the International Emergencies Economic Powers Act, known as the IEEPA, of 1977, granted him the authority to impose these overall tariffs.
However, the D.C. Court of Appeals does not agree with the commentary there from President Donald Trump ruling against him in that order. According to Jeanette Doran, who is the senior counsel for the John Locke Foundation, she noted that the federal circuit's ruling in this case is a win for the rule of law and for economic stability, telling the Carolina Journal at issue was whether the president could use emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs without congressional approval. The court gave the correct answer, which is no. According to Doran, it is Congress, not the president, that has the authority to.
Regulate commerce and impose taxes under the U.S. Constitution. the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was never intended to grant Presidents sweeping tariff powers. She noted that its purpose was to authorize targeted sanctions in response to defined national security threats. She also said by invoking these IEEPA powers to justify broad tariffs, the administration stretched the law far beyond its original scope.
So again, this D.C. Circuit Court did rule against the president back late last week.
However, the Trump administration does have until October the 14th to appeal this to the United States Supreme Court. This is going to be an interesting battle to watch play out as the president and those in the administration have invested a lot into these overall economic tariffs across countries all over the globe. We'll continue to track those details and the impacts that tariffs continue to have on a variety of industries across the state of North Carolina. We've got some links to those articles over on our website this morning, CarolinaJournal.com, and we'll, of course, keep you up to date here on the Carolina Journal News Hour, where it's now 5.38, News Talk 1110, 99.3 WBT. Coming up on October the 29th, the North Carolina Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in a case between two parents in a private school in Charlotte, North Carolina.
To get us up to date on the details this morning, Mitch Kokai of the John Locke Foundation joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour. Mitch, while this is only two parents in one school in the Charlotte area, this could have some broader impacts across the state of North Carolina as we see the school choice movement continuing, folks looking at alternatives outside of public schools. It's a pretty interesting legal challenge going on. It is, and it has attracted quite a bit of attention beyond what you might have expected. The story goes back to 2021, when two parents, Doug and Nicole Turpin, were starting to raise concerns about changes in the way that the school Charlotte Latin was operating.
They were concerned about the Some of the kind of DEI or critical race theory type things that seemed to be creeping into the atmosphere at Charlotte Latin. And so they were involved in a group that was raising questions about changes in the school's operations. And at some point, the school did not like the questions that Doug Turpin was asking. And so they basically kicked out the two Turpin kids from the school. A lawsuit was filed.
The Turpins are saying there's a breach of contract, that they were misled, deceived. And on the other side, Charlotte Latton was saying, Look, we're a private school. We have the right to determine who's going to be attending our school. We had a contract with the parents. There's a parent-school agreement, and that we have to be able to get along.
And if we can't get along, we have the right as the school to end that contract, which would mean that the students go away and find some sort of other educational outlet for them. At both the trial level And the Court of Appeals level, the courts have sided with the school, basically saying, you know, this is a contract, it's a private school, they could do what they want. But the state Supreme Court has agreed to take the case. We'll hear the oral arguments in late October. And the case has attracted quite a bit of interest.
Now, from the school side, the statewide and regional groups that represent private schools have come out in favor of the school, as has the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte.
Now, this is not a Catholic school, so it's not under the diocese, but the diocese put out a friend of the court brief saying, Look, we have some of the same similar arguments that Charlotte Latin is making, and there's also a First Amendment argument to be made when it comes to Catholic schools. And so, they wanted the court to consider that. On the other side, on the parent side, there have been a number of groups that would tend to be kind of freedom-oriented or right-of-center groups that have backed. Doug and Nicole Turpin, as have Congressman Richard Hudson and Pat Harrigan. And 11 Republican members of the General Assembly, who all signed on to a friend of the court brief supporting the parents, saying that, look, you can't allow a school to deceive parents or to mislead them or to take some steps that would.
Constitute a breach of contract. And the latest court filing from the Turpins, which came out in late August, said: look, you know, if you're allowing this school to prevail in this case, you're going to give private schools An advantage that you would not give to other private businesses that are involved in contracts. You would be giving them something that's beyond what a normal business would be able to get in a contract dispute. And so it's going to be very interesting to see what happens. The state Supreme Court didn't need to take up this case.
The lower courts have ruled for the school, including a unanimous ruling, an initial unanimous ruling from the State Court of Appeals that later was changed into a split ruling, in which one of the judges said, at least at this stage, which is the earliest stage of the litigation, the case should go forward. But still, the state Supreme Court did not need to take up this case. It did take up this case, which means there is at least some appetite in addressing this concern about the dispute between the Turpins and Charlotte Lattin and what that means for other. private school disputes with parents moving forward. Mitch, let me ask you to read a little bit between the tea leaves on this.
You laid that out perfectly. The state Supreme Court had absolutely no obligation to take this up. They have decided to do so. At any given point, Mitch, you're tracking dozens of legal cases across the state of North Carolina. What do you think the relevance of the state Supreme Court taking this up?
Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that there is such a movement in private schools across the state of North Carolina that this might be something else that they see on the horizon coming forward? There is the potential that that's one of the reasons that factors into this. The easiest. Way to describe why the Supreme Court would take this case when it doesn't have to is that it saw what was written at the Court of Appeals and wasn't quite satisfied with what the Court of Appeals did. If they thought the Court of Appeals, at least the majority opinion, got it completely right, they wouldn't have to take it.
They could basically just sort of slough it off and say that this is right at the Court of Appeals level. But it seems as if they either think the Court of Appeals got something about this wrong, or they at least want to say that we want the highest court in the state to have a final say on this so that when future disputes of this sort come up in the future, that it'll be easy for payments. Parents For schools, for all of the litigators involved to know what the law of the land is in North Carolina. And that could have, as you alluded to, some tie-in to the fact that we know that there's more school choice. We know that more parents in North Carolina are going to be looking at a private school option.
So, trying to settle what the law is when there's a parental school dispute at the private school level, trying to. Give some certainty as to where that will stand in future disputes might be something that the Supreme Court had in mind. Mitch, from a political standpoint, this is kind of an interesting story. Many families and guardians are taking their kids out of public schools and looking at things like charter and private and homeschooling because of some of the complaints made by the family in this case, DEI initiatives, CRT initiatives across the state of North Carolina in public schools, and really a broader move across the nation. There's kind of an interesting political element to this as well, as so many folks are evacuating the public school system to get away from many of these divisive concepts.
That's true. And, you know, the thing is, with the private school, you should be able to send your kids to a private school of any type of ideology or type of training that you think is best for your kids. And I think one of the things that the school is arguing is that, look, we have the right to teach kids the way that we want. And if parents don't like it, they could choose another option. They could choose another private school.
They can go back to the public school. One of the things that the Turpins are arguing is that we enrolled our students expecting a certain type of education. And then when the school started to change what type of education it was providing, we were simply asking questions to figure out. You know, where's this going? What are you teaching the kids?
How's it different than what you promised? And once the question started to be asked, then the school cut the kids out and said, Well, okay, you know, you don't agree with us, so you're out. And I think that that's something that could be ironed out to a greater extent once this case gets through the state Supreme Court and we get to see some sort of ruling. There might be some more clarity about what sorts of rights parents do have when they're in a private school and they think the private school has done something differently than what was expected. Had the parents enrolled and said yes to exactly what Charlotte Lattin is proposing, no one would have any problem with that because that's basically.
parents making the choice to their kids into the situation that Charlotte Lattin Had and saying that they liked that, which presumably most of the other parents at Charlotte Latin are fine with. But in this case, what the turpids are saying is we were promised one thing, it wasn't delivered. When we started asking questions about why it wasn't being delivered, then they gave us the boot. Yeah, I've sold the different bill of goods from reality. Those oral arguments taking place in late October.
We'll keep you up to date on those details. We appreciate the update this morning. Mitch Kokai from the John Locke Foundation joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour. When you bundle renters and auto with Progressive, you can save while protecting your most valuable possessions, like your priceless vinyl collection. Sure, you sleep on a futon because the money most people would have spent on a bed you spent on more records.
But forget the fact that you can stream just about any song ever created for a few dollars a month. No, no, you need to listen to music in the most difficult way possible.
So go ahead and get progressive so you can save while protecting the things that matter to you. Progressive Catalan Insurance Company and affiliates and other insurers, not available in all state situations. Progressive knows we all crave validation. Girl, you are not 37. I would have guessed 27.
You guys are too sweet. Sure, dewy skin. Terrific. Um, is something wrong, Ned? Why would you ask?
Just because today marks my 10th anniversary without a car accident or even a speeding ticket? But somehow, tonight's all about your skincare. Wow. With Snapshot from Progressive, you can get a personalized rate based on how you drive. And that's all the validation you need.
Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliate Snapshot not available in California from all agents surcharge possible for unseat driving. When you bundle renters and auto with Progressive, you can save while protecting your most valuable possessions, like your priceless vinyl collection. Sure, you sleep on a futon because the money most people would have spent on a bed you spent on more records. But forget the fact that you can stream just about any song ever created for a few dollars a month. No, no.
You need to listen to music in the most difficult way possible.
So, go ahead and get progressive so you can save while protecting the things that matter to you. Progressive Cattle Team Insurance Company and affiliates and other insurers are not available in all state situations. It's time for the sixth annual WBT Little Heroes Blood Drive heading your way tomorrow, Thursday, September 4th. WBT and the One Blood Big Red Bus will be at the Dog House in Uptown Charlotte. From 10 a.m.
to 3 p.m., we'll be broadcasting live and encouraging you to make a life-saving blood donation. It's the sixth annual WBT Little Heroes Blood Drive. Headed your way tomorrow, Thursday, September 4th, at the Doghouse in Uptown Charlotte. Visit WBT.com this morning for location details and register for your appointment. It's now 5.53.
Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, News Talk 1110-993 WBT. State Treasurer Brad Breiner and Republican legislative leaders are opposing Democrat Governor Josh Stein's proposal to pause a court dispute involving state judicial and utilities commission appointments. Documents filed last week urge the North Carolina Court of Appeals to reject the request from the governor and his legal team. A little backstory, a three-judge panel ruled back in June that the Republican-led General Assembly had encroached on the Democrat governor's authority when it created new restrictions on Stein's power to fill statewide judicial vacancies.
However, that exact same panel sided with Republican lawmakers on two other issues. shifting one of Stein's state utility commission appointments to Republican Brad Breiner, the state treasurer, as well as changing voting rules for the Building Code Council that exists in the state government across North Carolina. Both sides in the dispute dispute appealed the panel's decision as it was a split decision from the appeals court, and Stein's group filed paperwork back in the middle of August seeking a stay or a temporary pause on the case. Legislative lawyers do agree with Breiner and his legal team that this appeal should proceed expeditiously, according to a separate court filing on Wednesday, with Breiner saying, quote, swiftness, not delay, is the path forward. Because the treasurer believes that the public interest takes precedent over the governor's scheduling preferences, a stay should be denied.
The court should instead grant the treasurer's a pending request to expedite the briefing and resolution of this appeal. While the governor linked the Stein v. Hall case to others currently sitting in the appeals court, lawmakers emphasized the unique nature of the dispute involving judicial vacancies and noted waiting for a resolution for other cases would, quote, have no impact on the analysis of whether the new methodology for appointing judicial vacancies is constitutional under different constitutional provisions. We've seen a couple of these stories over the last six months or so. Pitting the Republican-led General Assembly against the now Democrat governor in Josh Stein over a variety of appointments.
You'll remember the pretty lengthy discussion and pretty well-fought legal battle between lawmakers and the governor over appointments to the North Carolina State Board of Elections, giving that a power, taking that power, I should say, from the governor and giving it to state auditor Dave Bollock. That sense has gone forward, and Republicans now control that board in a 3-2 majority over Democrats previously holding power on the North Carolina State Board of Elections, looking at a very similar case with the North Carolina Utilities Commission as well, and some changes to judicial vacancies across the state of North Carolina. As we talked about with Mitch Kokai from the John Locke Foundation earlier in the show this morning, lawmakers in Raleigh continuing to flex what authority they have as it is spelled out in our state's constitution. We continue to await details from the appeals court on this case and another that deals with seven other vacancy and various commission appointments. We'll continue to track those details over on our website, CarolinaJournal.com.
Well, that's going to do it for a Wednesday edition of the Carolina Journal News Hour. WBT News is next. Followed by Good Morning BT. We're back with you tomorrow morning, 5 to 6, right here on News Talk 11.10 and 99.3 WBT.
