The state Supreme Court’s April 2 ruling dismissing the long-running Leandro lawsuit seemed like a final nail in the coffin for the 32-year-old case. But to paraphrase Monty Python and the Holy Grail, it might not be dead yet.
The five low-wealth school districts that filed the claims in 1994—contending the state was not living up to its constitutional obligations to provide children a sound, basic education—asked the court to put a hold on its 4-3 ruling.
The long-awaited ruling dropped 770 days after an unusual rehearing in the case. The April ruling dismissed the case on procedural grounds, with Republican Chief Justice Paul Newby writing that it had impermissibly morphed into a “full-scale” challenge of the “entire educational system enacted by the General Assembly.” The majority—Newby and fellow Republican justices Trey Allen, Phil Berger Jr. (son of the powerful state Senate leader), and Tamara Barringer—nullified any rulings after July 24, 2017.
The school boards in Hoke, Cumberland, Halifax, Robeson, and Vance counties are now asking for a temporary suspension of that ruling to give them time to file a petition for another rehearing in the education funding case.
The districts did not say in their April 22 motion on what basis they plan to request a rehearing. They have until May 7 to ask for one, according to North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. A petition for rehearing may be filed in a civil action within 15 days after the mandate of the court has been issued, which happens 20 days after the ruling.
Those petitions should state with “particularity the points of fact or law” that the court “overlooked or misapprehended,” according to the rules. The rules further state that the court will issue a decision to take up or deny a rehearing request within 30 days.
“In light of the thirty-year history of this case and its great public significance, a stay pending a petition for rehearing furthers the public interest by demonstrating that the courts are taking care to resolve all aspects in an orderly and proper manner,” attorneys for the school board wrote in their eight-page request.
“Moreover, because this case has been dormant before this trial court for several years, and the mandate does not relate to any injunction or enable the Defendants to move forward with a money judgment, a brief stay would not prejudice any of the Defendants.”
The Republican leaders of the state Senate and House of Representatives filed a response objecting to the districts’ request. They argued that the districts can’t ask for a stay since the mandate took effect April 22. While the districts still have time to ask for a rehearing, the lawmakers’ attorney argued that the court can’t “stay the mandate in anticipation of a rehearing petition that has not yet been filed, let alone granted.”
The state Supreme Court already ordered one rehearing in the Leandro case. In 2022, when the court had a Democratic majority, the justices sided with the school districts and ordered the state to fund a settlement agreement that called for billions in spending over eight years. The court reheard the case in 2024, after the majority flipped to Republicans.
It’s not clear how quickly the Supreme Court will respond to the latest motions.