Cooper v. Berger
North Carolina Supreme Court
809 S.E.2d 98 (2018)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
North Carolina’s state legislature, known as the General Assembly, adopted a law that replaced the state’s board of elections and the state’s ethics commission with a single Bipartisan State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement (bipartisan board). The bipartisan board was charged with enforcing laws related to elections, lobbying, campaign finance, and ethics. It was to have eight members, four from the political party with the highest number of registered affiliates and four from the second highest. Additionally, the law specified that the state governor could only appoint board members from a list of candidates approved by the two political parties and could not remove board members from their positions except for wrongful conduct. The law took effect over the veto of North Carolina’s governor, Roy Cooper (plaintiff). Cooper filed a complaint against Philip Berger and Timothy Moore (defendants), the leaders of the state senate and house of representatives, alleging that the law violated the state constitution’s separation-of-powers provision. The superior court dismissed Cooper’s complaint for failure to state a judiciable issue. Cooper sought discretionary review by the North Carolina Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ervin, J.)
Dissent (Martin, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.