NC Supreme Court Sets Nov. 10 Arguments in Two Stein-Legislature Appointment Power Cases
The court allotted 2.5 hours, split between a dispute over filling appellate judicial vacancies and a dispute over the makeup of state boards and commissions.
Two Rivals Agree on One Thing: How Long to Argue
Gov. Josh Stein and the Republican leaders of North Carolina's legislature disagree about almost everything at stake in their two pending court fights. But they agreed on the clock. Both sides jointly proposed how to split the time, and the state Supreme Court accepted it in two separate orders[1].
The court set Nov. 10, 2026, the first day of its November session, for oral arguments in two consolidated cases: Stein v. Berger and Stein v. Hall, named for Senate leader Phil Berger and House Speaker Destin Hall[1]. It set aside 2.5 hours total. Each side gets 30 minutes on one question and 45 minutes on another[1].
That split matters, because the two questions are genuinely different fights bundled into one court date. One is about who picks judges when a seat opens up early. The other is about who sits on the boards that run North Carolina's roads, power rates and corporate tax breaks. Both come down to the same sentence in the state constitution: what does it actually mean for the governor to run the executive branch?
A Judge Quits. Who Picks the Replacement?
Before 2024, the answer was simple. If a seat opened on the Court of Appeals or the state Supreme Court, the governor could appoint any qualified person he wanted[2].
That changed with Senate Bill 382, passed in December 2024. Now the governor must choose from three names, and all three are submitted by the political party of the judge who left[2]. If a Republican judge steps down, three Republicans go on the list. The governor picks one of them, even if he'd rather appoint someone else.
SB 382 didn't arrive as a standalone bill about judges. Lawmakers combined it with Hurricane Helene disaster relief funding, then passed it by overriding then-Gov. Roy Cooper's veto[2]. The appointment-power changes and the storm aid moved through the legislature as one package.
In January 2026, the Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that lawmakers were within their rights to limit the governor's choices this way[2]. Stein and the legislature both appealed pieces of that ruling, which is what brought the case to the state's highest court.
Whoever Names the Board Sets the Bill
The second case covers seven state boards and commissions, and it's less abstract than it sounds. The Board of Transportation decides which roads get built[3]. The Economic Investment Committee decides which companies get tax incentives for bringing jobs to the state[3]. The Utilities Commission decides what households pay for electricity.
Recent laws changed who fills seats on these bodies. One law moved a Utilities Commission seat that used to belong to the governor over to the state treasurer instead — currently Brad Briner, a Republican[2][14]. Other laws reshaped how six more boards get their members.
The Court of Appeals split its ruling here too. It upheld the legislature's changes on four boards and struck down changes on three, including Transportation and the Economic Investment Committee[3]. So right now, some of these boards run under the new rules and some don't, depending on which one you're asking about.
Stein's Case: Control Means All Three Powers, Not Some
Stein's argument leans on a specific phrase in the state constitution: the governor must see that the laws are "faithfully executed." His brief says you can't be responsible for something you don't control[8].
By his reading, real control over a board means three linked powers: naming who serves, supervising them and removing them if needed. Stein says he's "limited to only seven appointees" across the bodies at issue, even though he's the only official who holds all three of those powers over the people he does name[8].
On judges, his objection is sharper. Under SB 382, a party committee — not the governor — decides which three names he gets to choose from. His brief points out he might think all three are unqualified and still have to appoint one, so long as they clear the bare legal minimums of age and bar membership[8].
Stein isn't arguing this alone. Five former governors — Republicans Jim Martin and Pat McCrory, and Democrats Mike Easley, Bev Perdue and Roy Cooper — filed a brief backing his position on Sept. 10, 2026[4][5]. Their brief calls their interest "nonpartisan," arguing separation of powers "transcends politics" and that having actually run the office gives them a practical read on what a governor needs[5]. A UNC constitutional scholar, John Orth, filed separately making a narrower textual argument that nothing in the constitution lets lawmakers limit the governor's appellate picks[6].
The Legislature's Case: We Built These Boards, We Can Structure Them
Legislative leaders answer with a question they say has an obvious answer. Their brief asks it directly: does the constitution require the governor to control a majority of every board the General Assembly itself created? "The answer is no[8]."
Their argument rests on origin. These boards aren't in the constitution. Lawmakers wrote them into existence by statute, defined their jobs and fund them every year. A body the legislature invented, they argue, is a body the legislature can structure — including by keeping some of the appointments for itself. Nothing in the constitution, their brief says, "expressly prohibits" the General Assembly from allocating appointments as it sees fit[8].
On judges, they see it differently than Stein does. Filling a vacancy, in their view, isn't a core executive act at all. It's a stand-in for an election, and the legislature can set rules to keep a departing judge's seat with that judge's party until voters get their say.
Republicans have held legislative majorities in North Carolina since 2011. Democrats have held the governorship for 28 of the last 32 years[13]. Neither party can win the other's turf at the ballot box, and that standoff is a big part of why these laws keep getting written and challenged in court.
A Court With Its Own Stake in the Judges Question
The court that will decide both cases has five Republican justices and two Democrats[9]. That matters beyond party math: the judicial-vacancy question asks the justices to rule on who fills seats on their own court between elections. A ruling for Stein would hand that power back to a Democratic governor.
There's a related data point worth watching. In an earlier, separate dispute over the State Board of Elections, the court's five Republicans declined to grant Stein's request and let a GOP-backed transfer of appointment power to the state auditor go forward. The two Democrats dissented[9].
News coverage of these cases splits along familiar lines. Carolina Journal, funded by the free-market John Locke Foundation, has produced most of the day-to-day reporting, and its procedural facts — dates, argument minutes, case details — check out. But it labels Stein "the Democratic governor" against "top Republican lawmakers" in nearly every story, which frames a constitutional dispute in partisan terms[1][2][8]. On the left, NC Newsline and Democracy Docket describe the pattern as a "power grab" spanning a decade, and stress that the courts deciding these cases lean Republican since 2023 elections[3][10]. Advocacy sites further left, like Daily Kos, state legislative motive as fact in their headlines, even while supplying real, checkable numbers about which party has held which branch[13]. No coverage from overseas outlets turned up, likely because this is a state-level dispute without a foreign-policy angle — not because international outlets agree on anything.
A ruling isn't expected before 2027. Whatever the court decides won't just settle Stein's fight with the current legislature. It will set the rules for the next governor, too, Republican or Democrat, facing whichever party controls the General Assembly by then.
Summary
North Carolina's Supreme Court has set Tuesday, Nov. 10, 2026, for oral arguments in two cases that pit Democratic Gov. Josh Stein against the Republican-led General Assembly. The cases are captioned Stein v. Berger and Stein v. Hall, after Senate leader Phil Berger and House Speaker Destin Hall. The court set aside 2.5 hours total. Each side gets 30 minutes on how appellate judicial vacancies are filled, and 45 minutes on everything else. The court issued two orders accepting a scheduling plan both sides had jointly proposed[1].
Two separate fights are bundled together. The first is about judges. Before a 2024 law, Senate Bill 382, the governor could fill a vacancy on the state Court of Appeals or Supreme Court with any qualified person he chose. Under SB 382, he must pick from three names submitted by the political party of the judge who left[2]. The second fight is about boards. Recent laws changed who appoints members of seven state boards and commissions, and moved one of the governor's seats on the Utilities Commission to State Treasurer Brad Briner, a Republican[2][14].
The state Court of Appeals split the difference below. In January 2026 it ruled 2-1 that lawmakers could limit the governor's choices for judicial vacancies[2]. On the boards, it upheld the legislature's changes to four bodies but struck down changes to three, including the Board of Transportation and the Economic Investment Committee, which awards targeted tax incentives to companies[3]. Both sides appealed the parts they lost.
The core dispute is what the state constitution's separation-of-powers clause actually requires. Stein argues the governor must control enough appointees to genuinely run the executive branch, and that he cannot do so when he is 'limited to only seven appointees' across these bodies[8]. Legislative lawyers answer that the constitution nowhere says the governor must control a majority of every board the legislature itself created, and that lawmakers may hand out those seats as they see fit — including to themselves[8]. The court that will decide has five Republican justices and two Democrats[9].
The Event
The North Carolina Supreme Court scheduled oral arguments for Nov. 10, 2026, the first day of its November session, in the consolidated appeals Stein v. Berger and Stein v. Hall[1]. The court allotted 2.5 hours: 30 minutes per side on the judicial-vacancy question and 45 minutes per side on the remaining appointment issues[1]. It did so in two orders accepting a joint proposal filed by Gov. Josh Stein and legislative leaders, after the two sides had earlier disagreed about the argument format[1]. On Sept. 10, 2026, the governor's office publicized a friend-of-the-court brief filed by former North Carolina governors supporting Stein's position[4].
Undisputed Facts
- The North Carolina Supreme Court set Nov. 10, 2026 for oral arguments in Stein v. Berger and Stein v. Hall, with 2.5 hours total[1].
- Each side receives 30 minutes on judicial vacancies and 45 minutes on the other appointment issues, under two court orders accepting a joint proposal[1].
- Senate Bill 382, enacted in 2024, requires the governor to fill a state Court of Appeals or Supreme Court vacancy from three names submitted by the departing judge's political party[2].
- Before SB 382, the governor could fill those appellate vacancies with any qualified person of his choosing[2].
- The General Assembly enacted SB 382 in December 2024 by overriding then-Gov. Roy Cooper's veto; the bill combined Hurricane Helene disaster-relief funding with the appointment-power changes now at issue in these cases[2].
- In January 2026 the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the General Assembly could impose the new limits on the governor's judicial-vacancy choices[2].
- The Court of Appeals upheld legislative changes to the membership of four state boards and struck down changes to three others, including the Board of Transportation and the Economic Investment Committee[3].
- One of the governor's appointments to the North Carolina Utilities Commission was shifted by statute to State Treasurer Brad Briner, a Republican[2][14].
- The North Carolina Supreme Court currently has five Republican justices and two Democratic justices[9].
- Former governors including Republicans Jim Martin and Pat McCrory and Democrats Mike Easley, Bev Perdue and Roy Cooper filed a friend-of-the-court brief backing Stein's position; the governor's office headlined its Sept. 10, 2026 release 'All Living NC Governors'[4][5].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- Split control is the engine
- North Carolina has had divided government for a long stretch. Democrats have held the governorship for 28 of the last 32 years; Republicans have held legislative majorities since 2011[13]. Neither branch can win the other's elections, so each tries to move power to the branch it already holds. That structure would produce these lawsuits regardless of the personalities involved.
- Appointments are the lever, not the rhetoric
- The practical stakes are concrete boards. The Utilities Commission sets what households pay for power. The Board of Transportation decides which roads get built. The Economic Investment Committee awards targeted tax incentives to companies that promise jobs[3]. Whoever names those members shapes real money.
- Courts became the venue because they became winnable
- Since Republicans won majorities on North Carolina's appellate courts in 2023, these disputes are decided by judges elected in partisan races[10][12]. That makes the judicial-vacancy question self-referential: the court deciding who fills its own between-election vacancies has an institutional stake in the answer.
- The workaround pattern
- Several of these laws do not abolish an appointment — they move it to a different elected executive officer who happens to be a Republican, such as the state treasurer for a Utilities Commission seat or the state auditor for elections board seats[2][9][10]. That design makes the 'legislature grabbing executive power' argument harder to make, because the power stays inside the executive branch.
Material realityTwo appeals are now consolidated for one 2.5-hour argument on Nov. 10, 2026[1]. Right now, the law as written by the General Assembly is in force on the judicial-vacancy question, after the Court of Appeals upheld it 2-1 in January 2026[2]. On the boards, the record is mixed: four sets of legislative changes stand, three were struck down[3]. One Utilities Commission seat that a governor once filled is now the treasurer's to fill[2][14]. The deciding court has five Republican justices and two Democrats, and in a related elections-board dispute the five Republicans declined to grant Stein's request while the two Democrats dissented[9]. A ruling is unlikely before 2027, and whatever it says will bind future governors of both parties — including a Republican governor facing a Democratic legislature.
Narrative as a weaponThree groups are actively shaping how this reads. Stein's office is running the most visible campaign: it publicized the former governors' brief on Sept. 10 and headlined it 'All Living NC Governors,' which is engineered to make the position look institutional rather than Democratic — the two Republican ex-governors are the whole point of the filing[4][5]. Legislative leaders are working the opposite direction, reducing the case to one narrow question with an obvious-sounding answer: nothing in the constitution says the governor must control a majority of every board lawmakers created[8]. Advocacy outlets on the left want you to see a decade-long seizure of power; they supply real structural facts but skip the legislature's textual argument entirely[10][13]. Carolina Journal, which has produced most of the actual reporting, is funded by a free-market foundation and, while its procedural facts check out, it frames the fight in party terms in nearly every story[1][2]. No overseas outlet has covered this; readers should not mistake that silence for consensus.
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asStein's case rests on a simple chain. The state constitution makes the governor responsible for seeing that the laws are 'faithfully executed.' You cannot be responsible for something you cannot control. Control, in his telling, means three linked powers over the people who run a board: the power to appoint them, supervise them, and remove them. Stein's brief says he is 'limited to only seven appointees' across these bodies — and he is the only official who holds all three powers over the people he names[8]. On judges, his argument is sharper still. Under SB 382, a political party executive committee, not the governor, picks the three people he may choose from. His brief notes he may conclude all three are unqualified and must still appoint one, so long as they meet the bare constitutional minimums of age and bar membership[8]. Stein also leans on history and on cross-party company: a bipartisan group of former governors told the court their shared experience as chief executive gives them a 'deep understanding of how the separation of powers works in the real world,' and that their interest is nonpartisan because the principle 'transcends politics'[5]. UNC constitutional scholar John Orth filed separately, arguing the constitution simply does not give lawmakers authority to limit the governor's appellate appointments[6].
WhyStein wants to govern with an executive branch that answers to him rather than to the legislature, and to avoid becoming the fourth Democratic governor in a row boxed in by Republican statutes. A win would also restore his ability to shape the appellate bench, which currently leans Republican[9].
Impact on themIf the rulings below stand, Stein loses discretion over appellate judicial picks and over seats on several boards, including one Utilities Commission seat now held by the Republican treasurer[2][14]. If he wins, he regains direct control over bodies that set transportation priorities, utility rates and corporate tax incentives[3].
Frames it asThe legislative leaders say the governor is asking the court to invent a rule the constitution never wrote down. Their brief puts it directly: 'Does the North Carolina Constitution require that the Governor control a majority of appointments to every statutory board and commission created by the General Assembly? The answer is no'[8]. Their strongest point is about origin. These boards are not mentioned in the constitution. The legislature created them by statute, defined what they do, and funds them. A body the legislature invented, they argue, is a body the legislature may structure — including by keeping some appointments for itself. Their brief adds that no provision 'expressly prohibits' the General Assembly from allocating appointments as it deems appropriate[8]. On judges, their view is that filling a vacancy is not a core executive act at all; it is a temporary substitution for an election, and the legislature may set the process by which a party's seat stays with that party until voters weigh in. They also note the legislature is the branch closest to voters, and that it, not the governor, is elected district by district across the whole state.
WhyRepublicans have held legislative majorities since 2011, while Democrats have held the governorship for 28 of the last 32 years[13]. Controlling appointments is how the legislative majority converts its durable hold on one branch into durable influence over agencies it cannot win at the ballot box for governor.
Impact on themA loss would void statutory structures on multiple boards and force the legislature to rewrite them. A win would confirm a decade of laws shifting appointment power, and would leave that power in place regardless of who wins the 2028 governor's race[10][13].
Frames it asThe court has not signaled a result. It accepted a format both parties jointly proposed and gave the judicial-vacancy question its own dedicated block of time, which is itself a signal that the justices see it as distinct from the boards question[1]. In a related dispute earlier, the court declined to grant Stein's request and allowed a Republican-backed transfer of State Board of Elections appointments to the state auditor to proceed; the five Republican justices supported that decision and the two Democrats dissented[9]. Supporters of the court's record say its role is to read the constitution's text, not to second-guess how the elected legislature organizes state government.
WhyThe justices face their own institutional stake: a ruling for Stein on judicial vacancies would return control over who joins their own court, between elections, to a Democratic governor.
Impact on themWhatever the court decides will set the ground rules for governor-legislature conflict in North Carolina for years, and will apply to future governors of both parties[7][12].
Frames it asThe five former governors — two Republicans, three Democrats — argue the question is institutional, not partisan. Their brief says their interest is 'nonpartisan' because separation of powers 'transcends politics,' and that having actually run the office gives them a practical read on what a governor needs to function[5]. Orth, a UNC constitutional scholar, argues the text of the constitution does not authorize legislative limits on appellate appointments[6]. The North Carolina Chamber, the state's main business lobby, has flagged the cases for members without taking Stein's side, framing the stakes as clarity: businesses need to know who controls the Utilities Commission, the transportation board and the committee that awards tax incentives[7].
WhyFormer governors are defending the value of the office they held. The Chamber's interest is predictability — it needs to know which officials can be lobbied and which decisions can be relied on.
Impact on themAmicus briefs do not decide cases. But a bipartisan lineup of ex-governors makes it harder to characterize Stein's position as purely a Democratic complaint, which is precisely the political work the filing is doing[4][5].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 4.7
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Associated Press | U.S. center (wire service) | 2 | "North Carolina court: GOP can narrow governor's appointment powers on some boards" — reports the split outcome, including the qualifier 'on some boards.' | Least framed of the set. The qualifier 'some' preserves the fact that the Court of Appeals upheld four board changes and struck down three — a nuance most partisan coverage drops in favor of a clean win or loss. |
| NC Chamber | U.S. business lobby (state chamber of commerce; member-funded, generally aligned with the legislative majority on tax and regulation) | 2 | "NC Supreme Court to Hear Separation-of-Powers Cases" — neutral, framed as a business-planning matter. | Studiously avoids taking a side, which is itself a choice: the Chamber's members benefit from stable rules on the Utilities Commission and the Economic Investment Committee no matter who controls them. Silence on the merits is the tell. |
| Carolina Journal | U.S. right (news outlet of the free-market John Locke Foundation) | 3 | "Stein, legislative leaders to clash in top NC court on Nov. 10" — procedural, with argument minutes and case captions reported straight. | The scheduling reporting is accurate and detailed. The framing tell is repetition of partisan labels — 'the Democratic governor' versus 'top Republican lawmakers' — in nearly every story, which recasts a constitutional question as a party fight. It also gives the legislature's brief generous direct quotation while Stein's appears in shorter excerpts. |
| NC Newsline | U.S. left (States Newsroom, a nonprofit network funded largely by progressive donors) | 4 | "Appeals Court sides with NC General Assembly in latest lawsuit over appointment powers" — the word 'latest' places the ruling in a running campaign. | Frames each ruling as an episode in an ongoing legislative offensive rather than as a discrete legal holding. Notes that appellate courts have rejected such challenges more often since Republicans won them in 2023 — true, but presented as the explanation rather than as one possible one. |
| Democracy Docket | U.S. left (founded and run by Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias; litigation-advocacy site) | 8 | "North Carolina's Political Power Struggle Continues — At Voters' Expense" — asserts a harm to voters in the headline. | The phrase 'at voters' expense' is a conclusion, not a finding. The site does not present the legislature's textual argument that it may structure boards it created; the dispute appears only as an assault on democratic accountability. Its stated purpose is advocacy, so readers should treat it as a brief, not a report. |
| Daily Kos | U.S. left (openly partisan Democratic community site) | 9 | "Inside the North Carolina GOP's decade-long push to seize power from the state's democratic governor" — 'seize power' states motive as fact. | Assigns intent in the headline. The underlying data point it supplies is useful and checkable: Democrats have held the governorship for 28 of the last 32 years while Republicans have controlled the legislature since 2011. That structural fact is the real story; 'seize' is the editorial layer on top of it. |
References
- Stein, legislative leaders to clash in top NC court on Nov. 10 — Carolina Journal · U.S. right; news outlet of the free-market John Locke Foundation
- NC Supreme Court takes two cases pitting Stein against top lawmakers — Carolina Journal · U.S. right; John Locke Foundation-funded
- Appeals Court sides with NC General Assembly in latest lawsuit over appointment powers — NC Newsline · U.S. left; States Newsroom nonprofit network, largely progressive-funded
- ICYMI: All Living NC Governors Join Constitutional Experts to Offer Bipartisan Support for Governor Stein in Protecting Separation of Powers — Office of the Governor of North Carolina · Party to the litigation; Democratic administration press office
- Former NC governors all back Stein in cases at top state court — Carolina Journal · U.S. right; John Locke Foundation-funded
- NC constitutional scholar sides with Stein in judicial vacancy dispute — Carolina Journal · U.S. right; John Locke Foundation-funded
- NC Supreme Court to Hear Separation-of-Powers Cases — North Carolina Chamber · State business lobby; member-funded, generally aligned with the legislative majority on tax and regulatory policy
- Stein, lawmakers offer clues about upcoming NC Supreme Court arguments — Carolina Journal · U.S. right; John Locke Foundation-funded (quotes both parties' briefs directly)
- NC high court denies Stein request, allows GOP takeover of state elections board — Associated Press · U.S. center; nonprofit wire cooperative
- North Carolina's Political Power Struggle Continues — At Voters' Expense — Democracy Docket · U.S. left; founded by Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias, litigation advocacy
- North Carolina court: GOP can narrow governor's appointment powers on some boards — Associated Press · U.S. center; nonprofit wire cooperative
- Legislating the Bench: North Carolina's Next Separation of Powers Battle — Wake Forest Law Review · Academic law journal; student-edited, no party funding
- Inside the North Carolina GOP's decade-long push to seize power from the state's democratic governor — Daily Kos · U.S. left; openly partisan Democratic community site
- Stein, Briner appeal rulings on judicial, utilities appointments — Carolina Journal · U.S. right; John Locke Foundation-funded