Court Opinion

ID: 9765676
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:13:30.582847+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:12.430434
License: Public Domain

Justice TIMMONS-GOODSON
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
No school system in the State of North Carolina can deprive students of all state-funded educational opportunities, unless it is absolutely necessary. I believe the Constitution of North Carolina and precedent from this Court made this guarantee to the children of our state. Today’s decision retreats from that promise. Because I would hold the right to education to be a fundamental right that is indivisible and not subject to parceling, I disagree with today’s decision.
Viktoria King was a sophomore at Southside High School in Beaufort County during the 2007-2008 school year. On 18 January 2008, multiple fights broke out among students after dismissal of school, including one allegedly between Viktoria and another student. For her involvement in the fight, Viktoria was suspended for five months, the remainder of the school year. The Beaufort Superintendent subsequently denied her, without explanation, access to all public educational options.
The question presented to this Court is whether Viktoria King’s complaint was sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. Viktoria claims that her constitutional right to a sound basic education was violated by depriving her of all state-funded educational opportunities during her long-term suspension. Because her alleged facts, if proved, would establish the violation of a fundamental right, I agree with the decision to reverse the opinion of the Court of Appeals upholding dismissal of Viktoria’s claim.
I disagree, however, with the majority’s application of intermediate scrutiny. The North Carolina Constitution and precedent *380from this Court firmly establish for every child of this state a constitutionally-rooted fundamental right to the opportunity for a sound basic education. Accordingly, a purported violation of this right, including the cessation of all state-funded educational services, should be strictly scrutinized.
When presented with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the question is “whether, as a matter of law, the allegations of the complaint, treated as true, are sufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.under some [recognized] legal theory.” Isenhour v. Hutto, 350 N.C. 601, 604, 517 S.E.2d 121, 124 (1999) (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6) (2009). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper when either “(1) the complaint on its face reveals that no law supports the plaintiffs claim; (2) the complaint on its face reveals the absence of facts sufficient to make a good claim; or (3) the complaint discloses some fact that necessarily defeats the plaintiffs claim.” Wood v. Guilford Cty., 355 N.C. 161, 166, 558 S.E.2d 490, 494 (2002) (citation omitted). “In ruling upon such a motion, the complaint is to be liberally construed . . . .” Shepard v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, 361 N.C. 137, 139, 638 S.E.2d 197, 199 (2006) (quoting Meyer v. Walls, 347 N.C. 97, 111, 489 S.E.2d 880, 888 (1997)).
In her complaint, plaintiff invokes the fundamental right to an opportunity for a sound basic education. Our North Carolina Constitution guarantees that “[t]he people have a right to the privilege of education, and it is the duty of the State to guard and maintain that right.” N.C. Const, art. I, § 15. In addition, Article IX is exclusively dedicated to education, whose importance is described in the very first section: “Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools, libraries, and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” Id. art. IX, § 1. Not coincidentally, this right to education appears beside other indisputably fundamental rights, such as religious liberty, freedom of speech and press, and freedom from ex post facto laws. Id. art. I, §§ 13, 14, 16.
In light of the emphasis that the framers of the North Carolina Constitution placed on education, this Court has recognized our constitution to establish the right to an opportunity for a sound basic education. And until today, the Court has never parsed this right to give it varying levels of protection depending on the context. Thirty years ago, in Sneed v. Greensboro City Board of Education, this Court concluded that “equal access to participation in our public *381school system is a fundamental right, guaranteed by our state constitution and protected by considerations of procedural due process.” 299 N.C. 609, 618, 264 S.E.2d 106, 113 (1980) (emphasis added) (holding the right to attend school could not be made contingent on the ability to pay). We reaffirmed this right in Leandro v. State, declaring that the North Carolina Constitution confers upon “every child ... a fundamental right to a sound basic education which would prepare the child to participate fully in society as it existed in his or her lifetime.” 346 N.C. 336, 348, 488 S.E.2d 249, 255 (1997) (emphasis added).
Again in Hoke County Board of Education v. State, this Court understood our constitution and Leandro to confer on each child an “individual right of an opportunity to a sound basic education.” 358 N.C. 605, 617, 599 S.E.2d 365, 378 (2004) (according this right “to all children . . ., regardless of their respective ages or needs,” id. at 172, 675 S.E.2d at 350). And as recently as last year, we considered the right to education fundamental yet again, stating, “The general and uniform system of public schools indicates a fundamental right to a sound basic education.” Wake Cares, Inc. v. Wake Cty. Bd. of Educ., 363 N.C. 165, 172-73, 675 S.E.2d 345, 350-51 (2009) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted) (allowing the assignment of students to year-round schools without parental consent). The majority and I agree that our case law recognizes a fundamental right to the opportunity for a sound basic education, but we part ways when it comes to splintering that right.
Put simply, the right to education is indivisible and cannot cease to be fundamental. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, _, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 683 (2008). “The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government — even the Third Branch of Government — the power to decide on á case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Id. None of the preceding cases contains any suggestion that the fundamental right to the opportunity for a sound basic education is limited to any particular context. As a result, I would hold this right to protect students from a complete termination of state-funded educational services during long-term suspensions. To hold otherwise would allow schools to grant every child an equal opportunity to enter school and then deprive them of all public education when it is less than necessary to do so.
The framers of our constitution and justices of this Court have held the right to the “privilege of education” to be of fundamental interest to the well-being of this state, as education prepares “stu*382dents to participate and compete in the society in which they live and work.” Leandro, 346 N.C. at 345, 488 S.E.2d at 254. Indeed, the right to public education is a cornerstone of our democracy. For these reasons, I decline to segment the constitutionally mandated “privilege of education” in this state. Education is an indivisible fundamental right, and it remains so in the context of long-term suspensions.
Because we are dealing with a fundamental right, strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review to determine whether that right has been unconstitutionally infringed by a government action. Rhyne v. K-Mart Corp., 358 N.C. 160, 180, 594 S.E.2d 1, 15 (2004); State ex rel. Utils. Comm’n v. Carolina Util. Customers Ass’n, Inc., 336 N.C. 657, 681, 446 S.E.2d 332, 346 (1994); Texfi Indus., Inc. v. City of Fayetteville, 301 N.C. 1, 11, 269 S.E.2d 142, 149 (1980). In fact in Leandro, which involved a challenge to disparate funding of local school systems that resulted in discrepancies in academic and extracurricular opportunities, this Court applied strict scrutiny. Under that analysis, when a fundamental right to a sound basic education is interfered with, the State must show that the interference is “necessary to promote, a compelling governmental interest.” Leandro, 346 N.C. at 357, 488 S.E.2d at 261 (citation and quotation marks omitted). Further, a State action infringing upon “the exercise of a fundamental right” must be “narrowly tailored.” Stephenson v. Bartlett, 355 N.C. 354, 377, 562 S.E.2d 377, 393 (2002) (citations and quotation marks omitted). The application of strict scrutiny also shifts the burden of proof, requiring the governmental entity to prove that infringement of the right was necessary to'further a compelling state interest. Leandro, 346 N.C. at 357, 488 S.E.2d at 261 (citation omitted).
No participant in this appeal suggests that local boards of education lack a compelling interest in ensuring safe and orderly schools. No one disputes that this compelling governmental interest operates in every long-term suspension or expulsion for fighting, other violent behavior, or any conduct that threatens the orderly administration of the schools. Cf. Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 507, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731, 738 (1969) (recognizing the “comprehensive authority” of school officials to control conduct in the schools within “fundamental constitutional safeguards”). Accordingly, strict scrutiny only requires school administrators to consider whether a long-term suspension or expulsion without some alternative educational option is necessary to achieve safety and order. If denial of an alternative education program is not necessary to fur*383ther a compelling state interest, then such action is not narrowly tailored and must be reversed.
In other words, if it is possible to provide a student who has infringed a school rule with some form of education without jeopardizing the safety of others, then that opportunity should be provided. If a safe and orderly school environment can be maintained without barring a student from every single state-funded educational service, then such a barrier should not be erected.
The analysis now turns to whether plaintiff has alleged facts that, “treated as true, state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Wood, 355 N.C. at 166, 558 S.E.2d at 494 (citing Isenhour, 350 N.C. at 604, 517 S.E.2d at 124). First, plaintiff sufficiently alleges interference with her fundamental right to an opportunity for education. Complete termination of educational services from January 18 until the end of the school year interferes with this fundamental right.
Plaintiff further alleges that this complete deprivation of all educational services was unnecessary and therefore not narrowly tailored. Both parties agree that defendants did not provide a reason for denying plaintiff access to any alternative education program during her suspension. It is also undisputed that plaintiff was denied access to an alternative education program during her long-term suspension because of her participation in a fight.
What is still unclear, however, is the exact reasoning upon which defendants denied plaintiff access to an alternative school. Nevertheless, if it is true that plaintiff was suspended for fighting, and no other factors contributed to defendants’ decision, then it was not necessary to deny plaintiff access to all educational services. It is unnecessary to the maintenance of a fruitful learning environment that every participant of every fight be both suspended and denied access to an alternative education program. Accordingly, plaintiff’s factual allegations are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.
Since this appeal seeks review of a motion to dismiss, principles of judicial restraint do not allow this Court to determine whether defendants’ decision to bar plaintiff from all alternative educational programs will actually withstand a strict scrutiny analysis. That analysis depends upon the strength of defendants’ rationale for the decision as determined by the finder of fact. Indeed, defendants may prove it was necessary to deny plaintiff access to all educational services, see Adam Winkler, Fatal in Theory and Strict in Fact: An *384Empirical Analysis of Strict Scrutiny in the Federal Courts, 59 Vand. L. Rev. 793, 862-71 (2006) (concluding that strict scrutiny, especially when fundamental rights are involved, is not always “fatal in fact” in federal cases), but this Court’s role is not to prospectively define the contours of narrow tailoring. Our state constitution does not require a student to receive public educational services regardless of how dangerous that student is to the school population, but it does prohibit state interference with this right unless absolutely necessary to do so. Accordingly, while this Court has previously recognized the authority of school officials to punish and discipline students in order to maintain a safe and secure educational environment, such authority does not empower school officials to implement punishments that violate a student’s constitutional rights. See Tinker, 393 U.S. at 513, 21 L. Ed. 2d at 741. At this stage, it will be for the trial court to decide whether the defendants’ reasons for this denial are narrowly tailored and necessary to advance a compelling state interest.
Having explained why I agree with the majority that dismissal of plaintiff’s claim was inappropriate, I now address my disagreement with the legal analysis put forth by the majority to support the application of intermediate scrutiny.
First, the majority opinion “does not recognize a state constitutional right to alternative education,” but nonetheless goes on to consider the appropriate constitutional standard of review when a suspended student alleges an infringement of her “statutory right to alternative education.” I find it novel to apply a constitutional standard of review to determine whether a statute has been violated. The majority seeks to “harmonize” the application of the rational basis test with the strict scrutiny test, citing various cases in which these tests were applied for the purpose of determining whether constitutional rights were violated by state action. However, the rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny standards of review traditionally have been applied to determine whether a government action violates individual rights having constitutional roots, not those created by statute. Classic examples of this application at the federal level include Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 54 L. Ed. 2d 618, (1978) (right to marry); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973) (right to abortion); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 31 L. Ed. 2d 92 (1972) (right to vote); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 22 L. Ed. 2d 600 (1969) (right to interstate travel), overruled in part on other grounds by Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 39 *385L. Ed. 2d 662 (1974); Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 86 L. Ed. 1655 (1942) (right to procreate). In North Carolina, this Court has also used these standards of review to evaluate constitutional claims. Rhyne, 358 N.C. at 180, 594 S.E.2d at 15 (due process and equal protection); Leandro, 346 N.C. at 348, 488 S.E.2d at 255 (quality of education); Carolina Util. Customers Ass’n, Inc., 336 N.C. at 681, 446 S.E.2d at 346 (equal protection); Sneed, 299 N.C. at 618, 264 S.E.2d at 113 (access to education).
While the majority tries to resolve this problem by naming the constitutional hook of “equal educational access,” this solution is based on a flawed syllogism. The majority acknowledges (1) that Sneed recognized the state constitutional right to equal educational access as a fundamental right, Sneed, 299 N.C. at 618, 264 S.E.2d at 113'(“[Equal access to participation in our public school system is a fundamental right . . . .”), and (2) that “exclusion from alternative education potentially infringes on a student’s state constitutional right to equal educational access.” Yet the majority somehow concludes merely that “school administrators must articulate a reason when they exclude a long-term suspended student from alternative education.” In my view, this conclusion does not follow. The logically sound conclusion is that the exclusion from alternative education programs and all other educational services potentially infringes upon a fundamental right. As the majority agrees that interference with a fundamental right requires a strict scrutiny analysis, strict scrutiny should be applied in this case.
Second, even in the context of an alleged constitutional violation, intermediate scrutiny is the incorrect standard for determining whether the right to an opportunity to a sound basic education has been violated. Until today, this Court has uniformly applied strict scrutiny in cases involving the right to education. While the majority opinion relies on Coggins ex rel. Coggins v. Board of Education for the proposition that school disciplinary decisions are subject only to rational basis review, the student in Coggins only challenged limitations on his participation in “secret societies known as Greek letter fraternities,” not a denial of all educational services. 223 N.C. 763, 768-69, 28 S.E.2d 527, 531 (1944). In fact, the challenged rule made “no attempt to deny plaintiff any instruction afforded by class work or by the required curriculum of the school.” Id. at 769, 28 S.E.2d at 531. Thus, the reliance by the majority on Coggins is misplaced.
Partitioning the right to education into subcategories, each with a different standard of review, also has uncertain and unexplained *386implications for what has long been considered a vested fundamental right of every North Carolina student. At best, the right to a sound basic education is transformed into a quasi-fundamental right in the student discipline context, cf. Blankenship, 363 N.C. at 526-27, 681 S.E.2d at 765-66 (holding that “the right to vote in superior court elections on substantially equal terms is a quasi-fundamental right” that is “reviewed under intermediate scrutiny”), and it remains fundamental in all other contexts. At worst, this decision has rewritten our constitution and overruled thirty years of precedent from this Court collectively establishing that the right to the opportunity for a sound basic education is fundamental. Whatever the precise parameters of today’s holding, the intermediate scrutiny standard is incompatible with Article I, Section 15; Article IX; and three decades of precedent.
Equally troubling is that intermediate review, in practice, will be no more exacting than the exceedingly deferential rational basis standard, which requires only that the regulation be reasonably related to some conceivable legitimate end. Standley v. Town of Woodfin, 362 N.C. 328, 332, 661 S.E.2d 728, 731 (2008) (citations omitted). As noted above, school districts always have an important, indeed compelling, interest in maintaining safe and orderly schools. A denial of alternative educational opportunities will ordinarily be substantially related to maintaining safety and order simply because the offender is dissociated from the school environment. The majority essentially concedes this point, stating that “school officials will have little or no difficulty articulating an important or significant reason for denying access to alternative education.” Thus, the intermediate standard of review will be toothless in the student discipline context and grossly inadequate to protect a fundamental right. I agree with the Supreme Court of the United States, which proclaimed, “The vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools.” Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 180, 33 L. Ed. 2d 266, 279 (1972) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
There also is no reason to believe that applying strict scrutiny would bring about the exaggerated consequences imagined by the majority. Strict scrutiny will not “immunize individuals from the consequences of their own misconduct,” because at times, it may be necessary to remove a student from all state-funded public education to ensure the safety and order of all schools, traditional and alternative. Cf. Tinker, 393 U.S. at 513, 21 L. Ed. 2d at 741 (stating that a student’s conduct that “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial *387disorder” is not “immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech”). For the same reason, strict scrutiny review would not prohibit long-term suspensions. Strict scrutiny is satisfied on a showing that it is necessary to remove a long-term suspended or expelled student without an alternative educational option in order to maintain safety and discipline in the schools. To that end, plaintiff and her amici point out that alternative education need not take any particular form. Alternative learning options might include computer- and Internet-based learning programs. “[I]n all but the most extreme cases the State will be able to provide reasonable state-funded educational opportunities and services .... Under such circumstances, providing educational opportunities and services to [long-term suspended or expelled] children is constitutionally mandated.” Cathe A. v. Doddridge Cty. Bd. of Educ., 200 W. Va. 521, 532, 490 S.E.2d 340, 351 (1997) (footnote omitted).
Further, this case marks only the second time our Court has applied intermediate scrutiny, and it is the first application in a statutory context. See Blankenship v. Bartlett, 363 N.C. 518, 526, 681 S.E.2d 759, 765 (2009) (applying intermediate scrutiny when considering equal protection challenges to judicial districts allegedly drawn in violation of the N.C. Constitution and analogizing that controversy to federal cases considering challenges based on rights guaranteed under the First Amendment). I must note, however, that Blankenship adopted the intermediate standard of review from federal jurisprudence and Plyler v. Doe. Id. at 524-27, 681 S.E.2d at 764-66. la Plyler, the Court refused to apply strict scrutiny to Texas’s withholding of free public education from the children of undocumented aliens, concluding that the right to education is only “quasi-fundamental” ' under the Federal Constitution, since that right is not expressly or impliedly guaranteed therein and the children were not a suspect class. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 221-23, 72 L. Ed. 2d 786, 801-03 (1982). By contrast, this Court has already determined the right to the opportunity for a sound basic education to be fundamental. Leandro, 346 N.C. at 348, 488 S.E.2d at 255-56. For the above reasons the intermediate standard of review is inappropriate for student discipline decisions that infringe upon the fundamental right to the opportunity for a sound basic education.
In my view, if it is possible to provide a student with some form of educational services during her long-term suspension without jeopardizing the safety and security of others, then that opportunity must be provided. This Court should simply apply the North Carolina *388Constitution as it is written and according to precedent from this Court. The complaint sufficiently alleges that defendants infringed plaintiff’s fundamental right to the opportunity for a sound basic education by unnecessarily removing her from all public school educational options without an alternative educational option.
Because plaintiff sufficiently alleged deprivation of a fundamental right, I would reverse the decision by the Court of Appeals affirming the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint. Therefore, I concur with the majority decision to reverse the Court of Appeals and remand this matter to the trial court. I conclude, however, that strict scrutiny, not intermediate scrutiny, is the proper standard of review. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the analysis and holding of the majority as to the correct standard of review on remand.
Justice HUDSON joins in this opinion concurring in part and dissenting in paid.