When the Judiciary Tries to Teach the Legislature a Lesson: Leandro v. State
Three decades, five cases, and one unfinished fight for education equity in North Carolina.
Photo: Courtesy of NC Lawyers Weekly
Education Equity, State Responsibility, and the Boundaries of Judicial Power
For over three decades, Leandro v. State has been central to the evolution of education law and policy in North Carolina. While the case centers on the state constitutional right to a sound basic education, it also raises broader issues, including the constitutionality of funding disparities between school districts, the State’s affirmative duty to support its students, and the separation of powers among the branches of government. At the time of this writing, the next chapter, Leandro V, is pending before the North Carolina Supreme Court, continuing the nearly 30-year litigation. The central question is whether, in the face of legislative inaction, the judiciary has the constitutional authority to intervene and compel the allocation of public funds.
Leandro I (1997): Establishing the Right to a “Sound Basic Education”
The Leandro[1] litigation began in 1994, when five low-income counties —Cumberland, Halifax, Hoke, Robeson, and Vance—sued the State of North Carolina and the State Board of Education. They argued that students in their school districts were being denied a sound basic education, as guaranteed by the North Carolina Constitution, because of disparities in education funding and resources.
In 1997, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that every child in the state has a constitutional right to a sound basic education. At a minimum, a sound basic education provides students with the ability to read, write, and communicate effectively; a foundational understanding of math, science, history, and civics; and the skills needed to pursue higher education and/or gainful employment.
However, the Court ruled that the existing funding system [2] was appropriate, concluding that equal education funding across school districts was not constitutionally required. Leandro I was then remanded to the trial court to determine whether students in the plaintiff counties were being denied their right to a sound basic education.
Leandro II (2004): Confirming Violations and Holding the State Responsible
Following the decision in Leandro I, then-Chief Justice Burley Mitchell appointed Wake County Superior Court Judge Howard Manning to oversee the Leandro proceedings at the trial court level. Under Judge Manning’s directive, the trial court conducted extensive hearings[3], with a particular focus on Hoke County. The evidence presented a bleak educational landscape: high dropout rates, low standardized test scores, and underprepared graduates. Local employers, community colleges, and representatives from the UNC system testified that Hoke County graduates lacked basic skills in reading, math, and writing. Conversely, the State argued it had fulfilled its constitutional duty by providing access to education and claimed that any student failure was attributable to the students themselves or their families, rather than systemic deficiencies.
In response to the overwhelming evidence of educational inadequacies, the trial court concluded that students in the plaintiff counties were denied their constitutional right to a sound basic education. The trial court rejected the State’s argument and held the responsibility to provide a sound basic education lies with the State, not local school districts. The trial court subsequently ordered the State to take corrective action by providing pre-kindergarten services to at-risk children, believing that early intervention was necessary to meet the State’s constitutional obligations.
On appeal in Leandro II[4], the North Carolina Supreme Court reviewed both issues. It affirmed the trial court’s conclusion on the first issue, agreeing that the rights of students in the plaintiff counties had been violated and that the State, not local school districts, bears the ultimate responsibility for ensuring all children, particularly those at risk, have access to a sound basic education. However, the Court overturned the trial court’s order regarding pre-kindergarten services. While it acknowledged the value of early education, the Court held that mandating specific educational programming was beyond the judiciary’s constitutional authority because creating education policy and implementing programs are powers that rest solely with the legislative and executive branches.
Leandro III (2013): Pre-Kindergarten Restrictions and Mootness
In the years following Leandro II, the state began taking incremental steps to improve educational opportunities for at-risk students. For example, in 2004, the General Assembly created the Disadvantaged Student Supplemental Funding (DSSF) initiative to provide additional resources to districts with high concentrations of at-risk students. In 2009, the state exercised oversight of Halifax County Schools due to persistent academic underperformance, signaling an increased willingness to intervene in struggling districts.
One of the state’s most notable efforts to support at-risk students during this period was the More at Four Pre-Kindergarten Program. This program was designed to prepare at-risk four-year-olds for success in kindergarten and beyond. More at Four focused on high-quality early childhood education, offering instruction from licensed teachers in classrooms meeting specific state standards for class size and curriculum. It quickly became a cornerstone of the state’s strategy for closing the achievement gap.
In 2011, however, the General Assembly enacted changes that undermined the program’s accessibility. These changes capped the percentage of at-risk children who could enroll and introduced fees for some families. Because More at Four specifically targeted at-risk students, many of whom faced socioeconomic barriers to educational success, these restrictions threatened to exclude the very children the program was designed to serve. The trial court found these changes unconstitutional, reasoning that they effectively denied access to a sound basic education. However, by the time the case reached the North Carolina Supreme Court in 2013, the General Assembly had repealed the contested provisions. As a result, Leandro III[5] was dismissed as moot.
Leandro IV (2022): The Fight for Funding
In 2018, the state commissioned WestEd, an education consulting group, to assess whether North Carolina was meeting its constitutional obligations. WestEd’s findings were grim: staffing shortages, underqualified teachers and administrators, and limited early education access for at-risk students. Perhaps most alarming was WestEd’s conclusion that the condition of public education in North Carolina had actually declined since 1997, despite decades of litigation and reform efforts.
To remedy this, WestEd proposed the Comprehensive Remedial Plan (“CRP”). The CRP is a sweeping, multi-year plan to bring North Carolina into compliance with their constitutional obligations. It included expansions for pre-K access, increased teacher support, programs to ensure fairer funding, and the redesigning of assessment systems. The trial court approved CRP’s and ordered the State Budget Director to transfer $1.7 billion to implement it. The state, which had $1.7 billion in reserves and federal aid, refused to act.
The order and the state’s refusal to act in compliance sparked a separation of powers conflict between the judiciary and legislature. At the core of the dispute was whether the court could compel the transfer of funds without explicit legislative approval, something that would traditionally fall within the purview of the General Assembly. The North Carolina Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the judiciary’s authority to act. It held that continued deference to legislative inaction would render the constitutional guarantee of a sound basic education—a right the State Supreme Court had established 25 years earlier—completely meaningless. The Court emphasized that when one branch of government fails to uphold its constitutional obligations, it is not only within the judiciary’s power to intervene but also its affirmative duty. In this case, the Court determined that directing the executive branch to implement the remedial plan was necessary to prevent an ongoing violation of students’ constitutional rights. Leandro IV[6] was remanded to the trial court to determine the exact amount the State Budget Director would need to transfer.
Forecasting Leandro V
The Leandro IV decision faced strong opposition from Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) and House Speaker Tim Moore (R-Cleveland). Berger and Moore petitioned for discretionary review, and the North Carolina Supreme Court agreed to accept new filings. In Leandro V, Berger and Moore, as Legislative-Intervenors, argued Leandro IV violates the Appropriations Clause of the state constitution, which grants the legislature exclusive authority over state spending. The plaintiffs counties contend that this issue has already been resolved: when the legislature fails to act after nearly three decades, the judiciary may intervene to ensure the disbursement of funds necessary to fulfill constitutional obligations. They further argue that overturning Leandro IV would undermine the rule of law and negatively impact public education.
Depending on how the Supreme Court rules, Leandro V could:
- Expand the judiciary’s role in enforcing educational rights through financial mandates;
- Recognize and re-affirm the judiciary’s responsibility to enforce the constitution through equitable remedies in the rare instance when the legislature has long failed to act;
- Limit judicial intervention in budgetary matters; or
- Remand the case back to the trial court, potentially delaying action once more.
Until a decision is made in Leandro V, the Comprehensive Remedial Plan remains just that: a plan. Its funding remains untouched in state reserves, while underfunded school districts and the students they serve continue to endure a wait that has stretched beyond three decades, with no guarantee of relief.
[1] Leandro v. State, 346 N.C. 336, 488 S.E.2d 249 (1997).
[2] In North Carolina, local school board budgets are largely funded through county property taxes. As a result, districts with higher property values, such as Wake County, can generate significantly more revenue than lower-wealth counties, like Hoke, contributing to persistent disparities in educational resources.
[3] Between 1999 and 2002, the trial court heard testimony from 43 witnesses, admitted over 670 documentary exhibits into evidence, and compiled 50 boxes of exhibits and transcripts.
[4] Hoke Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. State, 358 N.C. 605, 599 S.E.2d 365 (2004).
[5] Hoke Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. State, 367 N.C. 156, 749 S.E.2d 451 (2013).
[6] Hoke Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. State, 382 N.C. 386, 879 S.E.2d 193 (2022).
