September 3, 2025 • 34 mins
A federal court has ruled that former President Trump’s tariffs were illegal, dealing a blow to the administration’s trade policy. Meanwhile, lawmakers and Treasurer Briner are opposing any delay in their ongoing court battle with Governor Stein. In sports and economic news, analysts are weighing the impact of a potential Major League Baseball team in either Raleigh or Charlotte. Court filings are also ramping up ahead of the October 29 NC Supreme Court arguments in the Turpin case.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
It's five oh five and welcome into a Wednesday edition
of the Carolina Journal News Hour, Newstock eleven, ten ninety
nine three WBT. I'm Nick Craig. A good morning to you.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Well.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
Back late last week, a federal appeals court ruled that
a majority of President Donald Trump's tariffs are illegal. The
court voted seven to four to allow tariffs to remain
in place through October fourteenth, 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
(00:41):
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 nineteen
seventy seven grant him the authority to continue to impose
(01:02):
these wide, sweeping tariffs. According to the opinion from the
DC based Appeals Court, they wrote, quote, we affirmed the
CITs holding that the trafficking and reciprocal tariffs imposed by
the challenged executive orders exceed the authority delegated to the
President in the IEPA text. We also affirm that the
(01:25):
CIT grants of declatory 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.
(01:47):
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 steal in up their sectors, will not be impacted,
as they were implemented under a different laws and not
this sweeping emergency Economic Powers Act. According to Jeanette Dorin's
(02:11):
senior counsel for the John Locke Foundation, she told The
Carolina Journal, quote, 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.
(02:33):
The court gave the correct answer, which is no. According
to Dorian 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
(02:55):
authorize targeted sanctions in response to define national security threats.
By invoking IEPA to justify broad tariffs, the administration stretch
the law far beyond its original scope. According to Dorin,
with her telling the Carolina Journal quote, the appeals court
(03:15):
safeguarded both our constitutional order and the economic stability that families, workers,
and businesses rely on every day. This is a 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.
(03:36):
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, Carolina
Journal dot com. That headline story Federal court rules Trump
tariffs illegal. Those details over at Carolina Journal dot com,
where it's now five oh nine News Talk eleven ten
(03:59):
ninety nine 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 Bryner,
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
(04:19):
date this morning, Mitch Kokai of the John Locke Foundation
joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour. Mitche this
is a pretty high stakes legal challenge on going in
the state of North Carolina with some pretty big implications.
What's the latest that you're tracking.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
Certainly does have big implications. And remember that this is
a lawsuit that initially pitted Governor Josh Stein against Republican
legislative leaders on three different topics. One was a piece
of Senate Bill three eighty two from twenty twenty four
that changed the limitations on who josh Stein could appoint
(04:54):
to statewide judicial vacancy. So for the Court of Appeals
in state Supreme Court. Basically, or 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,
(05:16):
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
(05:36):
three eighty two, 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.
(05:57):
Then there was a third piece that came from another
bill that changed is 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
(06:18):
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
(06:41):
because the governor won in one respect and the legislature
one in the other respect, and by implication also treasure
with 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
(07:02):
of this appeal. He filed for emotion 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 Briner was about there being some sort
(07:25):
of feeling of illegitimacy if this was not resolved, and
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
(07:46):
in this case and wait for another ruling in a
different lawsuit pitting the governor against 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
(08:08):
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 sport 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,
(08:30):
the Court of Appeals has not said yet whether it's
going to take one side or the other.
Speaker 1 (08:35):
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 would 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
(08:57):
for appointments to a variety of commissions and utilities. Are
talking about the Utilities Commission this morning in this most
recent legal challenge that we're following. This is kind of
a broader approach though, however, by the GA.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
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, than we can. The
(09:32):
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 bit. We don't have
(09:53):
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
(10:13):
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 to
the court step in and say no, you're overstepping and
the governor really does have a valid legal argument here.
Speaker 1 (10:31):
It's obviously something that we'll keep you up to date
right here on the Carolina Journal News Hour. You can
also recontinued 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 available on
our website Carolina Journal dot com. We appreciate the update.
This morning. Mitch Kokai from the John Locke Foundation joins
(10:51):
us on the Carolina Journal News Hour. It's about twenty two.
Come back to the Carolina Journal News our newstock eleven
ten ninety nine three WBT. If you'll remember back a
few weeks ago, we talked about a new study that
showed out of ten cities that are potential contenders to
(11:11):
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
(11:33):
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 a Baseball and MLB teams, and perhaps most critically,
the ability to secure a dedicated MLB stadium. Based on
(11:55):
the report's analysis, Raleigh and Charlotte are North Carolina's two
big powerhouse cities, commanding national and global attention with rapid
growth will 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
(12:19):
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 twenty fifty, Raleigh stands
out with a projected forty five point eight percent increase,
(12:41):
second to only only San Antonio, Texas, while Charlotte ranks
six 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.
(13:03):
Among the ten MLB contender cities, Charlotte and Raleigh place
fourth and fifth in average weekly wages at one thousand
and sixty dollars for Charlotte and one fifteen dollars for Raleigh,
according to the study, media market sizes at another level
for twenty four. For twenty twenty four and twenty twenty five,
(13:25):
Charlotte ranks third and Raleigh ranks a fourth among the
tenth ten at various cities that are potentially in the
running for this rising nationally to twenty first and twenty
second 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
(13:48):
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 Earth.
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
(14:11):
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,
(14:33):
though the Braves have been a publicly traded team in
the Major League Baseball system since twenty twenty three. 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 ballpark stadiums and other sporting arenas
(14:54):
do not inherently bring the promised economic benefit. Hood says
that state and law governments do not derive sufficient return
on their investment in terms of job creation and financial
gain to justify significant payouts. Again, we're talking about potentially
a one or two billion dollar investment. He says that
(15:15):
that money spent on advertising of products would have been
He says, rather that spending money on other products would
have been better spent on other goods and services in
the market, and that tax payers, in fact would get
a better ROI if the funds were invested in public
services such as things like public safety, education, or infrastructure.
(15:39):
Other factors in the study looked at a 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
(16:02):
programs in the Raleigh Durham area. Major League Baseball runs
from April through September, with playoffs and World Series potentially
extending into October. In the early months of November. Charlotte,
on the other hand, has demonstrated strong support for professional
sporting teams, with the Panthers averaging seventy thousand fans per
(16:23):
game in their seventy five thousand seat stadium for about
three decades, except of course, during the COVID nineteen this season,
which happened in twenty twenty, the Hornets drawing around seventeen
thousand per game despite a forty two percent winning record,
and Charlotte FC setting the MLS's single game attendance record
(16:44):
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
(17:07):
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 top
ten cities that could be feasible for those expansions or relocations.
As the news continues to track on this and as
(17:29):
we get some more maybe concrete support for where the
league is looking. We'll continue that coverage over on our website,
Carolina Journal dot com. It's five thirty five. Welcome back
to the Carolina Journal News Hour Newstalk eleven, ten ninety
nine three WBT.
Speaker 2 (17:50):
Well.
Speaker 1 (17:51):
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 a sweep 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 fourteenth, giving the Trump administration time to
(18:13):
file an appeal with the United States Supreme Court. This
is the same court that lifted the bloc earlier this year,
issued by the Court of International Trade. Trump argued that
the International Emergency's Economic Powers Act, known as the IEEPA
of nineteen seventy seven, granted him the authority to impose
(18:35):
these overall tariffs. However, the DC Court of Appeals does
not agree with the commentary there from a President Donald Trump,
ruling against him in that order. According to Jeannette Dorin,
who is the Senior council for the John Locke Foundation,
she noted that the Federal circuits ruling in this case
is a win for the rule of law and for
(18:57):
economic stability 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 Dorin, it is Congress, not the President, that
has the authority to regulate commerce and impose taxes. Under
(19:21):
the US 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 define national security threats. She also said by invoking
(19:42):
these IEPA powers to justify broad tariffs, the administration stretched
the law far beyond its original scope. So again, this
DC Circuit Court did rule against the president back late
last week. However, the Trump administration does have until October
fourteenth to appeal this to the United States Supreme Court.
(20:05):
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 over these overall economic
tariffs across countries all over the globe. Will continue to
track those details and the impacts that tariffs continue to
have on a variety of industries across the state of
(20:26):
North Carolina. We've got some links to those articles over
on our website this morning, Carolina Journal dot com, and
we'll of course keep you up to date here on
the Carolina Journal News Hour, where it's now five thirty eight,
News Talk eleven, ten ninety nine to three WBT. Coming
up on October the twenty ninth, the North Carolina Supreme
Court is set to hear oral arguments in a case
(20:48):
between two parents in a private school in Charlotte, North Carolina.
To get us up to date on the details, this morning,
Mitch Koki of the John Locke Foundation joins us on
the Carolina Journal News Hour. Mitch, while this is there's
only two parents in one school in the Charlotte area,
this is cand have some broader impacts across the state
of North Carolina, as we see the school choice movement continuing,
(21:08):
folks looking at alternatives outside of public schools. Some pretty
interesting legal challenge going on.
Speaker 2 (21:15):
It is, and it has attracted quite a bit of
attention beyond what you might have expected. The story goes
back to twenty twenty one when two parents, Doug and
Nicole Turpin, were starting to raise concerns about changes in
the way that the school, Charlotte Latin was operated, and
they were concerned about some of the DEI or critical
(21:39):
race theory type things that seem to be creeping into
the atmosphere at Charlotte Lattin. 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 that
did not like the questions that Doug Turpin was asking,
and so they basically kicked out the two Turpin kids
(22:00):
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, Charlot Lattin 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
(22:23):
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.
(22:45):
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. Statewide and regional groups that represent private
schools have come out in favor of the school, as
(23:05):
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 Lattin 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.
(23:27):
On the other side, on the parents side, there have
been a number of groups that would tend to be
freedom oriented or right of center groups that have backed
Doug and Nicole Turpin, as have Congressman Richard Hudson and
Pat Harrigan, and eleven Republican members of the General Assembly
who all signed on to a friend of the court
(23:48):
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 Turpens, which came
out in late August, said, look, if you're allowing this
(24:11):
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.
(24:34):
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,
(24:54):
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.
Speaker 1 (25:15):
Mitch, let me ask you to read a little bit
between the tea leaves on this. You lay 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? You
think it has anything to do with the fact that
(25:36):
there is such a movement in private and private schools
across the state of North Carolina that this might be
something else that they see on the horizon coming forward.
Speaker 2 (25:48):
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,
(26:10):
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
(26:31):
future disputes of this sort come up in the future,
that it'll be easy for 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 into the fact that
we know that there's more school choice. We know that
more parents in North Carolina are going to be looking
(26:53):
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.
Speaker 1 (27:10):
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 home schooling because of some of the complaints made
by the family in this case, DEI initiative CRT initiatives
across the state of North Carolina in public schools, and
really a broader move across the nation. There's kind of
(27:33):
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.
Speaker 2 (27:43):
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 ideologic, 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
(28:03):
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 where's this going,
(28:27):
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, OK,
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
(28:50):
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 put their kids into
(29:13):
the situation that Charlotte Lattin had and saying that they
liked that, which presumably most of the other parents that
Charlotte Lattin are fine with. But in this case, what
the Turpins 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.
Speaker 1 (29:33):
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, Mitchkokai from the John Locke Foundation joins us
on the Carolina Journal News Hour. It's time for the
(29:54):
sixth annual WBT Little Heroes Blood Drive heading your way Tomorrow,
Thursday a September fourth. WBT and the One Blood, Big
Red Bus will be at the Doghouse in Uptown Charlotte
from ten am to three pm. Will be broadcasting live
and encouraging you to make a life saving blood donation.
It's the sixth annual WBT Little Heroes Blood Drive headed
(30:16):
your way tomorrow, Thursday, September fourth, at the Doghouse in
Uptown Charlotte. Visit WBT dot com this morning for location
details and register for your appointment. It's now five point
fifty three. Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour
News Talk eleven ten ninety nine three. WBT State Treasurer
Brad Briner and Republican legislative leaders are opposing Democrat Governor
(30:40):
Josh Stein's proposal to pause a court dispute involving state
judicial and Utilities Commission appointments. Documents filed last week urged
the North Carolina Court of Appeals to reject the request
from the governor and his legal team. A little backstory,
a three judge panel rule back in June that the
(31:01):
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 Briner, the
(31:24):
state Treasurer, as well as changing voting rules for the
building a Code Council that exists in the state government
across North Carolina. Both sides in the dispute. A dispute
appealed the panel's decision, as it was a split decision
from the appeals court and Stein's a group filed paperwork
back in the middle of August seeking a stay or
(31:46):
a temporary pause on the case. Legislative lawyers do agree
with Briner and his legal team that this appeal should
proceed expeditiously. According to a separate court filing, off on Wednesday,
with Bryner saying, quote swiftness, not delay, is the path forward.
Because the Treasurer believes that the public interest takes precedent
(32:10):
over the Governor's scheduling preferences, a stay should be denied.
The court should instead grant the Treasurer's appending request to
expedite the briefing and resolution of this appeal. While the
governor linked the steinv. Hall case to others currently sitting
in the Appeals court, lawmakers emphasize the unique nature of
(32:31):
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,
(32:55):
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,
(33:15):
taking that power, I should say from the governor and
giving it to State Auditor Dave Bollock. That since has
gone forward and Republicans now control that board in a
three to two 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,
(33:38):
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 and Raleigh continuing to flex what authority they have
as it is spelled out in our states Constitution. We
continue to wait details from the Appeals Court on this
(33:59):
case and another that deals with seven other vacancy and
various commission appointments. Will continue to track those details over
on our website at Carolina Journal dot 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 five
(34:20):
to six right here on News Talk eleven, ten and
ninety nine three WBT
It's five oh five and welcome into a Wednesday edition
of the Carolina Journal News Hour, Newstock eleven, ten ninety
nine three WBT. I'm Nick Craig. A good morning to you.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Well.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
Back late last week, a federal appeals court ruled that
a majority of President Donald Trump's tariffs are illegal. The
court voted seven to four to allow tariffs to remain
in place through October fourteenth, 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
(00:41):
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 nineteen
seventy seven grant him the authority to continue to impose
(01:02):
these wide, sweeping tariffs. According to the opinion from the
DC based Appeals Court, they wrote, quote, we affirmed the
CITs holding that the trafficking and reciprocal tariffs imposed by
the challenged executive orders exceed the authority delegated to the
President in the IEPA text. We also affirm that the
(01:25):
CIT grants of declatory 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.
(01:47):
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 steal in up their sectors, will not be impacted,
as they were implemented under a different laws and not
this sweeping emergency Economic Powers Act. According to Jeanette Dorin's
(02:11):
senior counsel for the John Locke Foundation, she told The
Carolina Journal, quote, 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.
(02:33):
The court gave the correct answer, which is no. According
to Dorian 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
(02:55):
authorize targeted sanctions in response to define national security threats.
By invoking IEPA to justify broad tariffs, the administration stretch
the law far beyond its original scope. According to Dorin,
with her telling the Carolina Journal quote, the appeals court
(03:15):
safeguarded both our constitutional order and the economic stability that families, workers,
and businesses rely on every day. This is a 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.
(03:36):
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, Carolina
Journal dot com. That headline story Federal court rules Trump
tariffs illegal. Those details over at Carolina Journal dot com,
where it's now five oh nine News Talk eleven ten
(03:59):
ninety nine 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 Bryner,
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
(04:19):
date this morning, Mitch Kokai of the John Locke Foundation
joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour. Mitche this
is a pretty high stakes legal challenge on going in
the state of North Carolina with some pretty big implications.
What's the latest that you're tracking.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
Certainly does have big implications. And remember that this is
a lawsuit that initially pitted Governor Josh Stein against Republican
legislative leaders on three different topics. One was a piece
of Senate Bill three eighty two from twenty twenty four
that changed the limitations on who josh Stein could appoint
(04:54):
to statewide judicial vacancy. So for the Court of Appeals
in state Supreme Court. Basically, or 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,
(05:16):
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
(05:36):
three eighty two, 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.
(05:57):
Then there was a third piece that came from another
bill that changed is 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
(06:18):
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
(06:41):
because the governor won in one respect and the legislature
one in the other respect, and by implication also treasure
with 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
(07:02):
of this appeal. He filed for emotion 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 Briner was about there being some sort
(07:25):
of feeling of illegitimacy if this was not resolved, and
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
(07:46):
in this case and wait for another ruling in a
different lawsuit pitting the governor against 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
(08:08):
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 sport 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,
(08:30):
the Court of Appeals has not said yet whether it's
going to take one side or the other.
Speaker 1 (08:35):
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 would 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
(08:57):
for appointments to a variety of commissions and utilities. Are
talking about the Utilities Commission this morning in this most
recent legal challenge that we're following. This is kind of
a broader approach though, however, by the GA.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
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, than we can. The
(09:32):
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 bit. We don't have
(09:53):
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
(10:13):
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 to
the court step in and say no, you're overstepping and
the governor really does have a valid legal argument here.
Speaker 1 (10:31):
It's obviously something that we'll keep you up to date
right here on the Carolina Journal News Hour. You can
also recontinued 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 available on
our website Carolina Journal dot com. We appreciate the update.
This morning. Mitch Kokai from the John Locke Foundation joins
(10:51):
us on the Carolina Journal News Hour. It's about twenty two.
Come back to the Carolina Journal News our newstock eleven
ten ninety nine three WBT. If you'll remember back a
few weeks ago, we talked about a new study that
showed out of ten cities that are potential contenders to
(11:11):
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
(11:33):
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 a Baseball and MLB teams, and perhaps most critically,
the ability to secure a dedicated MLB stadium. Based on
(11:55):
the report's analysis, Raleigh and Charlotte are North Carolina's two
big powerhouse cities, commanding national and global attention with rapid
growth will 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
(12:19):
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 twenty fifty, Raleigh stands
out with a projected forty five point eight percent increase,
(12:41):
second to only only San Antonio, Texas, while Charlotte ranks
six 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.
(13:03):
Among the ten MLB contender cities, Charlotte and Raleigh place
fourth and fifth in average weekly wages at one thousand
and sixty dollars for Charlotte and one fifteen dollars for Raleigh,
according to the study, media market sizes at another level
for twenty four. For twenty twenty four and twenty twenty five,
(13:25):
Charlotte ranks third and Raleigh ranks a fourth among the
tenth ten at various cities that are potentially in the
running for this rising nationally to twenty first and twenty
second 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
(13:48):
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 Earth.
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
(14:11):
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,
(14:33):
though the Braves have been a publicly traded team in
the Major League Baseball system since twenty twenty three. 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 ballpark stadiums and other sporting arenas
(14:54):
do not inherently bring the promised economic benefit. Hood says
that state and law governments do not derive sufficient return
on their investment in terms of job creation and financial
gain to justify significant payouts. Again, we're talking about potentially
a one or two billion dollar investment. He says that
(15:15):
that money spent on advertising of products would have been
He says, rather that spending money on other products would
have been better spent on other goods and services in
the market, and that tax payers, in fact would get
a better ROI if the funds were invested in public
services such as things like public safety, education, or infrastructure.
(15:39):
Other factors in the study looked at a 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
(16:02):
programs in the Raleigh Durham area. Major League Baseball runs
from April through September, with playoffs and World Series potentially
extending into October. In the early months of November. Charlotte,
on the other hand, has demonstrated strong support for professional
sporting teams, with the Panthers averaging seventy thousand fans per
(16:23):
game in their seventy five thousand seat stadium for about
three decades, except of course, during the COVID nineteen this season,
which happened in twenty twenty, the Hornets drawing around seventeen
thousand per game despite a forty two percent winning record,
and Charlotte FC setting the MLS's single game attendance record
(16:44):
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
(17:07):
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 top
ten cities that could be feasible for those expansions or relocations.
As the news continues to track on this and as
(17:29):
we get some more maybe concrete support for where the
league is looking. We'll continue that coverage over on our website,
Carolina Journal dot com. It's five thirty five. Welcome back
to the Carolina Journal News Hour Newstalk eleven, ten ninety
nine three WBT.
Speaker 2 (17:50):
Well.
Speaker 1 (17:51):
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 a sweep 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 fourteenth, giving the Trump administration time to
(18:13):
file an appeal with the United States Supreme Court. This
is the same court that lifted the bloc earlier this year,
issued by the Court of International Trade. Trump argued that
the International Emergency's Economic Powers Act, known as the IEEPA
of nineteen seventy seven, granted him the authority to impose
(18:35):
these overall tariffs. However, the DC Court of Appeals does
not agree with the commentary there from a President Donald Trump,
ruling against him in that order. According to Jeannette Dorin,
who is the Senior council for the John Locke Foundation,
she noted that the Federal circuits ruling in this case
is a win for the rule of law and for
(18:57):
economic stability 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 Dorin, it is Congress, not the President, that
has the authority to regulate commerce and impose taxes. Under
(19:21):
the US 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 define national security threats. She also said by invoking
(19:42):
these IEPA powers to justify broad tariffs, the administration stretched
the law far beyond its original scope. So again, this
DC Circuit Court did rule against the president back late
last week. However, the Trump administration does have until October
fourteenth to appeal this to the United States Supreme Court.
(20:05):
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 over these overall economic
tariffs across countries all over the globe. Will continue to
track those details and the impacts that tariffs continue to
have on a variety of industries across the state of
(20:26):
North Carolina. We've got some links to those articles over
on our website this morning, Carolina Journal dot com, and
we'll of course keep you up to date here on
the Carolina Journal News Hour, where it's now five thirty eight,
News Talk eleven, ten ninety nine to three WBT. Coming
up on October the twenty ninth, the North Carolina Supreme
Court is set to hear oral arguments in a case
(20:48):
between two parents in a private school in Charlotte, North Carolina.
To get us up to date on the details, this morning,
Mitch Koki of the John Locke Foundation joins us on
the Carolina Journal News Hour. Mitch, while this is there's
only two parents in one school in the Charlotte area,
this is cand have some broader impacts across the state
of North Carolina, as we see the school choice movement continuing,
(21:08):
folks looking at alternatives outside of public schools. Some pretty
interesting legal challenge going on.
Speaker 2 (21:15):
It is, and it has attracted quite a bit of
attention beyond what you might have expected. The story goes
back to twenty twenty one when two parents, Doug and
Nicole Turpin, were starting to raise concerns about changes in
the way that the school, Charlotte Latin was operated, and
they were concerned about some of the DEI or critical
(21:39):
race theory type things that seem to be creeping into
the atmosphere at Charlotte Lattin. 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 that
did not like the questions that Doug Turpin was asking,
and so they basically kicked out the two Turpin kids
(22:00):
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, Charlot Lattin 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
(22:23):
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.
(22:45):
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. Statewide and regional groups that represent private
schools have come out in favor of the school, as
(23:05):
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 Lattin 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.
(23:27):
On the other side, on the parents side, there have
been a number of groups that would tend to be
freedom oriented or right of center groups that have backed
Doug and Nicole Turpin, as have Congressman Richard Hudson and
Pat Harrigan, and eleven Republican members of the General Assembly
who all signed on to a friend of the court
(23:48):
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 Turpens, which came
out in late August, said, look, if you're allowing this
(24:11):
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.
(24:34):
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,
(24:54):
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.
Speaker 1 (25:15):
Mitch, let me ask you to read a little bit
between the tea leaves on this. You lay 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? You
think it has anything to do with the fact that
(25:36):
there is such a movement in private and private schools
across the state of North Carolina that this might be
something else that they see on the horizon coming forward.
Speaker 2 (25:48):
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,
(26:10):
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
(26:31):
future disputes of this sort come up in the future,
that it'll be easy for 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 into the fact that
we know that there's more school choice. We know that
more parents in North Carolina are going to be looking
(26:53):
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.
Speaker 1 (27:10):
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 home schooling because of some of the complaints made
by the family in this case, DEI initiative CRT initiatives
across the state of North Carolina in public schools, and
really a broader move across the nation. There's kind of
(27:33):
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.
Speaker 2 (27:43):
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 ideologic, 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
(28:03):
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 where's this going,
(28:27):
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, OK,
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
(28:50):
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 put their kids into
(29:13):
the situation that Charlotte Lattin had and saying that they
liked that, which presumably most of the other parents that
Charlotte Lattin are fine with. But in this case, what
the Turpins 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.
Speaker 1 (29:33):
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, Mitchkokai from the John Locke Foundation joins us
on the Carolina Journal News Hour. It's time for the
(29:54):
sixth annual WBT Little Heroes Blood Drive heading your way Tomorrow,
Thursday a September fourth. WBT and the One Blood, Big
Red Bus will be at the Doghouse in Uptown Charlotte
from ten am to three pm. Will be broadcasting live
and encouraging you to make a life saving blood donation.
It's the sixth annual WBT Little Heroes Blood Drive headed
(30:16):
your way tomorrow, Thursday, September fourth, at the Doghouse in
Uptown Charlotte. Visit WBT dot com this morning for location
details and register for your appointment. It's now five point
fifty three. Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour
News Talk eleven ten ninety nine three. WBT State Treasurer
Brad Briner and Republican legislative leaders are opposing Democrat Governor
(30:40):
Josh Stein's proposal to pause a court dispute involving state
judicial and Utilities Commission appointments. Documents filed last week urged
the North Carolina Court of Appeals to reject the request
from the governor and his legal team. A little backstory,
a three judge panel rule back in June that the
(31:01):
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 Briner, the
(31:24):
state Treasurer, as well as changing voting rules for the
building a Code Council that exists in the state government
across North Carolina. Both sides in the dispute. A dispute
appealed the panel's decision, as it was a split decision
from the appeals court and Stein's a group filed paperwork
back in the middle of August seeking a stay or
(31:46):
a temporary pause on the case. Legislative lawyers do agree
with Briner and his legal team that this appeal should
proceed expeditiously. According to a separate court filing, off on Wednesday,
with Bryner saying, quote swiftness, not delay, is the path forward.
Because the Treasurer believes that the public interest takes precedent
(32:10):
over the Governor's scheduling preferences, a stay should be denied.
The court should instead grant the Treasurer's appending request to
expedite the briefing and resolution of this appeal. While the
governor linked the steinv. Hall case to others currently sitting
in the Appeals court, lawmakers emphasize the unique nature of
(32:31):
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,
(32:55):
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,
(33:15):
taking that power, I should say from the governor and
giving it to State Auditor Dave Bollock. That since has
gone forward and Republicans now control that board in a
three to two 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,
(33:38):
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 and Raleigh continuing to flex what authority they have
as it is spelled out in our states Constitution. We
continue to wait details from the Appeals Court on this
(33:59):
case and another that deals with seven other vacancy and
various commission appointments. Will continue to track those details over
on our website at Carolina Journal dot 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 five
(34:20):
to six right here on News Talk eleven, ten and
ninety nine three WBT
Popular Podcasts
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com