North Carolina
All Cases
21 North Carolina Cases

North Carolina
Mar 2025
Voting Rights
Griffin v. North Carolina Board of Elections (Amicus)
This case arises from the November 2024 election for state supreme court justice in North Carolina. Incumbent State Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs defeated Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin, but Griffin has filed a petition seeking to invalidate more than 65,000 votes from the election. He argues that the state Board of Elections impermissibly allowed 60,000 people to register without providing their driver鈥檚 licenses or social security numbers, and that the Board impermissibly allowed 5,500 overseas voters to cast absentee ballots without photo identification. The petition has resulted in both federal and state litigation, and the 红杏视频 has submitted amicus briefs in both venues. In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the 红杏视频鈥檚 Voting Rights Project and the 红杏视频 of North Carolina filed an amicus brief explaining that the petition鈥檚 attempt to cancel tens of thousands of votes threatens democratic backsliding in North Carolina. Separately, in the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the 红杏视频鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative and the 红杏视频 of North Carolina submitted an amicus brief explaining that, even if the Board did make mistakes, cancelling votes as a consequence of those mistakes would violate the popular sovereignty provision of the North Carolina Constitution because voters relied on the Board to know how to register and vote.
Explore case
North Carolina
Mar 2025

Voting Rights
Griffin v. North Carolina Board of Elections (Amicus)
This case arises from the November 2024 election for state supreme court justice in North Carolina. Incumbent State Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs defeated Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin, but Griffin has filed a petition seeking to invalidate more than 65,000 votes from the election. He argues that the state Board of Elections impermissibly allowed 60,000 people to register without providing their driver鈥檚 licenses or social security numbers, and that the Board impermissibly allowed 5,500 overseas voters to cast absentee ballots without photo identification. The petition has resulted in both federal and state litigation, and the 红杏视频 has submitted amicus briefs in both venues. In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the 红杏视频鈥檚 Voting Rights Project and the 红杏视频 of North Carolina filed an amicus brief explaining that the petition鈥檚 attempt to cancel tens of thousands of votes threatens democratic backsliding in North Carolina. Separately, in the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the 红杏视频鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative and the 红杏视频 of North Carolina submitted an amicus brief explaining that, even if the Board did make mistakes, cancelling votes as a consequence of those mistakes would violate the popular sovereignty provision of the North Carolina Constitution because voters relied on the Board to know how to register and vote.

North Carolina Supreme Court
Dec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
State v. Wright
This case in the North Carolina Supreme Court involves the question of whether the police violated the U.S. Constitution when they searched the defendant, Mr. Wright鈥檚, backpack even after he repeatedly said no to the search requests. The 红杏视频 alongside the 红杏视频 of North Carolina filed an amicus brief arguing that the search was unconstitutional because Mr. Wright鈥檚 eventual 鈥渃onsent鈥 was the result of police coercion. Our brief urges the court to consider the totality of the circumstances that make one more susceptible to coercion, including race and poverty.
Explore case
North Carolina Supreme Court
Dec 2024

Criminal Law Reform
State v. Wright
This case in the North Carolina Supreme Court involves the question of whether the police violated the U.S. Constitution when they searched the defendant, Mr. Wright鈥檚, backpack even after he repeatedly said no to the search requests. The 红杏视频 alongside the 红杏视频 of North Carolina filed an amicus brief arguing that the search was unconstitutional because Mr. Wright鈥檚 eventual 鈥渃onsent鈥 was the result of police coercion. Our brief urges the court to consider the totality of the circumstances that make one more susceptible to coercion, including race and poverty.

North Carolina
Dec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Billard v. Charlotte Catholic High School
Lonnie Billard worked at Charlotte Catholic High School for more than a decade 鈥 both as full-time drama and as a long-term substitute teacher 鈥 and has won numerous teaching awards, including teacher of the year. In October 2014, Lonnie wrote a Facebook post announcing that he and his long-time partner were getting married. Later that year, the school told Lonnie he could no longer work as a substitute teacher because his engagement and marriage to another man was contrary to the religious principles of the Catholic Church.
Explore case
North Carolina
Dec 2024

LGBTQ Rights
Billard v. Charlotte Catholic High School
Lonnie Billard worked at Charlotte Catholic High School for more than a decade 鈥 both as full-time drama and as a long-term substitute teacher 鈥 and has won numerous teaching awards, including teacher of the year. In October 2014, Lonnie wrote a Facebook post announcing that he and his long-time partner were getting married. Later that year, the school told Lonnie he could no longer work as a substitute teacher because his engagement and marriage to another man was contrary to the religious principles of the Catholic Church.

North Carolina
Jan 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Short v. Hartman
Pretrial detainees cannot be punished because they have not been convicted of any crime. Yet until recently, courts have applied the Eighth Amendment鈥檚 heightened, subjective legal standard applicable to convicted prisoners to claims brought by pretrial detainees. The 红杏视频 is working to ensure that courts apply a lower, objective standard to Fourteenth Amendment claims brought by pretrial detainees.
Explore case
North Carolina
Jan 2024

Prisoners' Rights
Short v. Hartman
Pretrial detainees cannot be punished because they have not been convicted of any crime. Yet until recently, courts have applied the Eighth Amendment鈥檚 heightened, subjective legal standard applicable to convicted prisoners to claims brought by pretrial detainees. The 红杏视频 is working to ensure that courts apply a lower, objective standard to Fourteenth Amendment claims brought by pretrial detainees.