King Ex Rel. Harvey-Barrow v. Beaufort County Board of Education
704 S.E.2d 259, 2010 N.C. LEXIS 733, 364 N.C. 368 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A school board's decision to deny a long-term suspended student access to alternative education is subject to intermediate scrutiny and violates the student's state constitutional right to equal educational access if the board fails to articulate an important or significant reason for the denial.
Facts:
- Viktoria King was a sophomore at Southside High School in Beaufort County.
- On January 18, 2008, King participated in a fight involving numerous students at her school.
- The school principal issued King a ten-day suspension and recommended she receive a long-term suspension.
- The Beaufort County Superintendent, Jeffrey Moss, suspended King for the remainder of the 2007-2008 school year.
- During her long-term suspension, King was not offered placement in an alternative education program, and defendants provided no reason for this denial.
Procedural Posture:
- After a due process hearing, a panel of central office administrators upheld Viktoria King's long-term suspension.
- King filed a complaint in Superior Court (the trial court), seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against the Beaufort County School Board.
- The Superior Court denied King's motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed her complaint.
- King, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
- A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision in favor of the Beaufort County School Board, the appellee.
- King, as appellant, appealed the Court of Appeals' decision to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a school board's denial of alternative education to a student during a long-term suspension, without providing a reason, violate the student's state constitutional rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Martin, J.
Yes. While there is no fundamental constitutional right to alternative education, a school board's decision to deny a long-term suspended student such an opportunity without reason violates the student's state constitutional right to equal educational access. The General Assembly has created a statutory right for students to receive alternative education when feasible and appropriate. Arbitrarily denying access to this statutory right infringes on the constitutional right to equal educational access established in cases like Leandro and Sneed. The court rejected both the deferential rational basis test (as inadequately protecting student rights) and the strict scrutiny test (as imposing unworkable burdens on school administrators). Instead, the court established intermediate scrutiny as the proper standard, requiring school administrators to articulate an 'important or significant reason' for denying access, thereby striking a balance between protecting educational opportunities and preserving the discretion of school officials to maintain safe and orderly schools.
Dissenting - Newby, J.
No. A school board's disciplinary decision, including the denial of alternative education, should be reviewed under the traditional and highly deferential rational basis standard. For over a century, courts have refrained from interfering with the reasonable disciplinary decisions of school officials unless they are clearly arbitrary or unreasonable. The court's decisions in Leandro and Hoke County, which applied strict scrutiny to school funding, are distinct from student discipline cases. The legislature has established a comprehensive framework that grants local school officials the flexibility and discretion to manage student conduct and determine when alternative education is appropriate. By imposing a heightened standard of review, the majority improperly intrudes into the constitutional province of the executive and legislative branches and forces courts to second-guess the professional judgment of educators.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Timmons-Goodson, J.
Yes. The court reached the correct result in reversing the dismissal, but it applied the wrong legal standard. The North Carolina Constitution establishes a fundamental and indivisible right to the opportunity for a sound basic education. Any governmental action that infringes upon this fundamental right, including the complete denial of all state-funded educational services, must be reviewed under strict scrutiny, not the newly-adopted intermediate scrutiny. Under strict scrutiny, the school board would have to prove that its denial of alternative education was narrowly tailored and necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest, such as school safety. Applying intermediate scrutiny wrongly splinters a fundamental right and provides a 'toothless' standard that is inadequate to protect students' constitutional guarantees.
Analysis:
This case establishes a new, intermediate standard of review for a specific type of school disciplinary decision in North Carolina, creating a middle ground between the traditional deference of rational basis review and the high bar of strict scrutiny from the Leandro line of cases. By requiring school boards to articulate an 'important or significant reason' for denying alternative education, the decision enhances procedural protections for long-term suspended students. This holding creates a new precedent that forces school administrations to be more transparent and deliberate in their disciplinary processes, potentially limiting blanket denials of alternative placements and increasing litigation over what constitutes an 'important or significant' reason.
Unlock the full brief for King Ex Rel. Harvey-Barrow v. Beaufort County Board of Education