North Carolina Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Two Cases on Whether Lawmakers Can Curb the Governor's Appointment Powers
The state's high court, with a 5-2 Republican majority, will review consolidated separation-of-powers disputes between Democratic Gov. Josh Stein and GOP legislative leaders over appointments to state boards, judicial vacancies, and the Utilities Commission.
Summary
On Friday, June 19, 2026, the North Carolina Supreme Court agreed to hear two consolidated cases, Stein v. Berger and Stein v. Hall, that will decide how much power the Republican-controlled legislature can take from the Democratic governor over who staffs state government[1]. The disputes grew out of laws passed by the GOP supermajority that changed appointments to seven state boards and commissions, restricted the governor's choices when filling judicial vacancies, and moved one of the governor's seats on the Utilities Commission to the Republican state treasurer[1][2]. Lower courts have split the difference: an appeals panel upheld some changes and struck down others on the boards, and ruled 2-1 for lawmakers on judicial vacancies[7][10].
The core dispute is about the North Carolina Constitution's separation-of-powers clause. Gov. Josh Stein argues that the constitution gives the governor the duty to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed,' which requires real control over the people who run executive agencies[2][3]. Legislative leaders Phil Berger and Destin Hall argue the constitution gives the General Assembly broad authority to create agencies and decide how they are filled, and they are asking the court to overturn two precedents (McCrory v. Berger and Cooper v. Berger) that limited that authority[1][12].
The stakes are unusually high because of who decides. The state Supreme Court holds a 5-2 Republican majority, and the same body has recently upheld other legislative restructurings[3][9]. A ruling for the legislature could shrink the office of governor—already ranked among the weakest in the country—for years; a ruling for Stein would reaffirm limits on how far lawmakers can reach into the executive branch[3][4]. No verdict has been issued; the court has only agreed to hear the cases.
The Event
In orders issued Friday, June 19, 2026, the North Carolina Supreme Court agreed to hear two consolidated separation-of-powers cases, Stein v. Berger and Stein v. Hall, brought by Democratic Gov. Josh Stein against Senate leader Phil Berger and House Speaker Destin Hall[1]. The cases challenge state laws that altered the governor's appointments to seven state boards and commissions, limited his choices for filling statewide judicial vacancies, and shifted one of his Utilities Commission appointments to Republican Treasurer Brad Briner[1][7]. The court has not yet ruled on the merits; it has only granted review[1].
Undisputed Facts
- On Friday, June 19, 2026, the NC Supreme Court agreed to hear the consolidated cases Stein v. Berger and Stein v. Hall[1].
- The challenged provisions originated largely in Senate Bill 382, which the Republican-led General Assembly passed in December 2024 over then-Gov. Roy Cooper's veto and which combined Hurricane Helene relief with government-structure changes[1].
- Stein v. Berger concerns changes to seven state boards and commissions; the Court of Appeals upheld changes to four (including the Coastal Resources, Emergency Management, and Wildlife Resources commissions) and struck down changes to three (including the Board of Transportation and the Commission for Public Health)[1][9].
- Stein v. Hall concerns a law requiring the governor to fill appellate judicial vacancies from three names submitted by the party of the departing judge, plus the transfer of one Utilities Commission appointment to the state treasurer[7][10].
- The Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in favor of lawmakers on the judicial-vacancy provision, with Judge John Tyson writing the majority and Judge Allegra Collins dissenting[10].
- Republicans hold a 5-2 majority on the North Carolina Supreme Court[3].
- By 2024, a standard political-science ranking placed the institutional powers of North Carolina's governor last among the 50 states, down from third-weakest in 2010[3].
- Legislative leaders have asked the court to overrule two precedents, McCrory v. Berger (2016) and Cooper v. Berger (2018), that previously limited legislative control over executive appointments[1][12].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- Power durability beyond elections
- The legislature's GOP supermajority seeks control over policy that survives losing the governorship; reassigning appointments to lawmakers and other elected Republicans locks in influence regardless of who wins statewide races[3][4].
- Executive self-preservation
- Any governor, of either party, has a structural interest in defending the office's appointment power, which is why even Republican former governors back Stein's constitutional position[3].
- Who holds the gavel
- The dispute's outcome is shaped by the court's 5-2 Republican majority, which has already upheld related restructurings and is being explicitly asked to overrule prior precedent[3][9][12].
Material realityRegardless of rhetoric, the laws have already redistributed real authority over bodies that regulate electricity rates, the environment, coastal and wildlife management, transportation, and the courts. North Carolina's governorship is, by standard measures, now the institutionally weakest in the country. The cases will set the binding rule for executive-legislative conflicts in the state for years, and a decision to overturn McCrory and Cooper would remove the main judicial limits lawmakers have faced[3][4][12].
Narrative as a weaponTwo narratives compete. The legislature and conservative media (Carolina Journal) want readers to see a routine, constitutional exercise of lawmaking authority being unfairly resisted by a governor seeking to 'claw back' power, and point to a Republican court ruling partly against them as proof of fairness. The governor, Democrats, and investigative/progressive outlets (ProPublica, NC Newsline) want readers to see a sustained, partisan 'power grab' aimed at one party's governors. Wire and public-radio coverage (AP, WUNC) sits closer to the documented record—mixed rulings, specific provisions—without adopting either side's verbs.
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 argues the state constitution makes the governor responsible to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed,' and that this duty is hollow if the legislature controls who sits on the commissions that actually carry out the laws. His best advocates frame it as a structural principle, not a partisan one: every living former North Carolina governor, Republican and Democrat, has objected, and Stein's line is that one branch should not 'make the laws and then control who enforces them.' He leans on the McCrory and Cooper precedents, in which the court found lawmakers had overstepped[2][3].
WhyTo preserve the practical authority of his own office and the agencies he oversees—including environmental, transportation, and utilities regulation—and to avoid a precedent that would lock in a diminished governorship for his term and beyond[3][4].
Impact on themA loss would further reduce his control over policy implementation in areas from energy rates to coastal development; a win would restore or protect appointment power on the contested boards[4].
Frames it asBerger and Hall argue the General Assembly holds the constitutional authority to create state agencies and to decide how they are composed, including giving itself or other elected officials a role in appointments. Their strongest claim is textual and historical: they contend the McCrory and Cooper precedents 'cannot be squared with constitutional text, history, or precedent' and were 'wrong the day they were decided,' drew sharp dissents, and should be overruled. They also note that an all-Republican appeals panel still ruled partly against them, presenting the process as legitimate[1][12].
WhyTo consolidate durable policy control regardless of which party wins the governorship, ensuring GOP-aligned majorities on key regulatory bodies and over judicial vacancies[3][4].
Impact on themA win would cement a sweeping reallocation of executive authority to the legislature; a loss would force them to restore gubernatorial appointments on the contested entities[1].
Frames it asBriner, a Republican, is the elected statewide official who would gain a Utilities Commission appointment under the restructuring. The argument advanced on this side is that spreading appointments among multiple elected officials (not just the governor) is itself a legitimate, accountable design choice, since the treasurer also answers to voters. Briner has separately asked the high court to clarify the law[11].
WhyTo exercise the new appointment power the statute grants his office and to obtain legal certainty about its scope[11].
Impact on themThe ruling directly determines whether the treasurer keeps a seat-selection role on the body that sets electricity and utility rates[11].
Frames it asThis group, including bipartisan former governors who filed amicus briefs, frames the case as a test of whether the judiciary will enforce structural limits on legislative power. Their argument is institutional: separation of powers protects citizens regardless of party, and a legislature that can both write laws and staff the agencies enforcing them concentrates power dangerously. Critics on the other side counter that unelected judges should defer to the elected legislature's structural choices[3][10].
WhyTo preserve checks and balances and the predictability of constitutional precedent[10].
Impact on themThe outcome will set the governing rule for executive-legislative disputes in North Carolina for years and signal how willing the GOP-majority court is to revisit prior rulings[3].
The Bias Ledger average rating 3.8
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 / center-left wire | 2 | "North Carolina judges issue mixed ruling on governor's appointment powers" | Neutral 'mixed ruling' framing; attributes claims to both sides and avoids loaded verbs—closest to straight reporting[5]. |
| Courthouse News Service | U.S. center (legal-affairs trade press) | 3 | "North Carolina governor can't claw back judicial appointment power" | Headline adopts the 'claw back' verb, subtly framing Stein as overreaching, though the body is procedurally detailed and balanced[6]. |
| WUNC | U.S. center / center-left (public radio) | 3 | "North Carolina court: GOP can narrow governor's appointment powers on some boards" | 'GOP can narrow' centers the partisan actor and the limiting of the governor, but qualifier 'on some boards' preserves the mixed result[9]. |
| Carolina Journal | U.S. right (NC; published by the conservative John Locke Foundation) | 4 | "NC Supreme Court takes two cases pitting Stein against top lawmakers" | Even-handed in tone but selects detail favorable to lawmakers—stresses that an all-Republican panel ruled partly for Stein and foregrounds the legislature's request to overrule precedent; uses 'claw back' framing elsewhere for Stein's position[1]. |
| NC Newsline | U.S. left (NC; part of the progressive States Newsroom network) | 5 | "Appeals Court sides with NC General Assembly in latest lawsuit over appointment powers" | Word 'latest' frames the dispute as one episode in a sustained GOP campaign; emphasizes Stein's loss and the partisan stakes over the legislature's constitutional argument[2]. |
| ProPublica | U.S. left-of-center (nonprofit investigative) | 6 | "Inside the North Carolina GOP's Decade-Long Push to Seize Power From the State's Democratic Governors" | 'Seize power' and 'decade-long push' cast the legislature as the aggressor; heavily sourced but built around the thesis that the transfers are an anti-democratic power grab[3][4]. |
References
- NC Supreme Court takes two cases pitting Stein against top lawmakers — Carolina Journal · U.S. right; published by the conservative John Locke Foundation
- Appeals Court sides with NC General Assembly in latest lawsuit over appointment powers — NC Newsline · U.S. left-leaning nonprofit; part of States Newsroom
- Inside the North Carolina GOP's Decade-Long Push to Seize Power From the State's Democratic Governors — ProPublica · U.S. left-of-center nonprofit investigative
- How GOP Lawmakers' Power Transfers Are Reshaping Everything From Utilities to Environmental Regulation in North Carolina — ProPublica · U.S. left-of-center nonprofit investigative
- North Carolina judges issue mixed ruling on governor's appointment powers — Associated Press via The Washington Post · U.S. center / center-left wire
- North Carolina governor can't claw back judicial appointment power — Courthouse News Service · U.S. center; legal-affairs trade press
- Appeals Court favors lawmakers over Stein in judicial, utilities case — Carolina Journal · U.S. right; John Locke Foundation
- Stein v. Berger (case tracker) — State Court Report (NYU Brennan Center) · U.S. legal-academic; center-left affiliation
- North Carolina court: GOP can narrow governor's appointment powers on some boards — WUNC (North Carolina Public Radio) · U.S. center / center-left public radio
- STEIN v. HALL (2026) — FindLaw (NC Court of Appeals opinion) · Primary legal record
- Briner asks top NC court to clarify law on appointment powers — Carolina Journal · U.S. right; John Locke Foundation
- State ex rel. McCrory v. Berger (2016) — Justia (NC Supreme Court decision) · Primary legal record