Introduction

The case of Michael Mole' v. City of Durham (384 N.C. 78) presents a significant examination of the Supreme Court of North Carolina's authority over discretionary review and the precedential value of appellate decisions. Michael Mole', a former sergeant with the Durham Police Department, challenged his termination by the City of Durham, asserting violations of his constitutional rights under the North Carolina Constitution. The pivotal issues centered on the misuse of internal disciplinary procedures and the broader implications of unpublishing Court of Appeals opinions, raising questions about transparency and the establishment of legal precedents.

Summary of the Judgment

Heard on February 9, 2023, the Supreme Court of North Carolina rendered a unanimous per curiam decision in Michael Mole' v. City of Durham. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' dismissal of Mole's Article I, Section 19 claims but reversed the dismissal of his Article I, Section 1 claim. Notably, the Supreme Court chose to "unpublish" the Court of Appeals' opinion, rendering it without precedential value. This decision implies that while the lower court's ruling stands in this particular case, it does not serve as binding authority for future cases. Justice Dietz provided a concurring opinion, elucidating the Court's rationale, while Justices Morgan and Earls dissented, critiquing the majority's approach to unpublishing and discretionary review.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references prior cases to justify the unpublishing of the Court of Appeals' decision. Key among these are:

• Costner v. A.A. Ramsey & Sons Inc. (318 N.C. 687, 351 S.E.2d 299, 1987): Established that in the absence of a majority decision, Court of Appeals opinions can be left undisturbed but carry no precedential weight.
• NORTHWESTERN BANK v. ROSEMAN (319 N.C. 394, 395, 1987): Followed a similar rationale to Costner, emphasizing the lack of a majority decision leading to non-precedential status.
• Townes v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC (382 N.C. 681, 682, 2022): Reinforced the practice of unpublishing appeals in cases of divided court opinions.
• COUCH v. PRIVATE DIAGNOSTIC CLINIC (351 N.C. 92, 1999): Demonstrated the Court’s handling of equally divided decisions, maintaining non-precedential status for Court of Appeals opinions.
• John Conner Constr., Inc. v. Grandfather Holding Co., LLC (366 N.C. 547, 2013): Illustrated the application of DRIA and nondistributive precedents.

These precedents collectively underscore the Court's discretion in determining the precedential value of appellate opinions, particularly in scenarios lacking a clear majority consensus.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's decision hinged on North Carolina General Statutes §7A-31, which governs discretionary review. Under subsection (c), the Supreme Court may certify cases for review if they involve significant public interest, major legal principles, or potential conflicts with Supreme Court decisions. Mole' argued that his case met these criteria, especially concerning the Fruits of Labor Clause and equal protection claims.

In its per curiam opinion, the Court exercised its discretion to deem the review of the case as improvidently allowed, meaning that while the Court of Appeals' decision was left intact for the present case, it does not set a binding precedent. Justice Dietz's concurring opinion elaborated on the non-unprecedented nature of unpublishing Court of Appeals opinions, emphasizing that such actions prevent "messy rulings" when the Court is divided without a clear majority.

The majority reasoned that without a majority consensus, publishing the Court of Appeals' decision could lead to inconsistent jurisprudence and confusion in lower courts. Thus, unpublishing serves as a mechanism to maintain clarity and coherence in legal precedents.

Impact

The decision in Michael Mole' v. City of Durham has profound implications for North Carolina's legal landscape:

• Precedent Setting: By unpublishing the Court of Appeals' opinion, the Supreme Court limits the establishment of new binding precedents from such cases, affecting how similar future disputes may be resolved.
• Transparency and Accountability: Critics argue that unpublishing decisions diminishes transparency, potentially undermining public trust in the judiciary.
• Employment Law: The case touches upon significant constitutional provisions like the Fruits of Labor Clause and equal protection for public employees, signaling potential shifts in how employment disputes within municipal entities might be adjudicated.
• Judicial Procedural Practices: The decision may influence how appellate courts consider the precedential value of their opinions, especially in closely divided courts.

Furthermore, dissenting opinions highlight concerns about the Court overstepping its traditional boundaries, suggesting that such actions could lead to arbitrary judicial power and inconsistent application of law.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Understanding the judgment requires familiarity with several legal concepts:

• Discretionary Review Improvidently Allowed (DRIA): This mechanism allows the Supreme Court to dismiss a petition for review if it determines that the review was improperly granted, without addressing the merits of the case.
• Unpublishing of Opinions: When the Supreme Court decides to "unpublish" an appellate court's opinion, it declares that the decision does not hold precedential value. This means lower courts are not bound to follow it in future cases.
• Fruits of Labor Clause: A constitutional provision in North Carolina that protects public employees from arbitrary termination, ensuring they retain rights related to their employment tenure.
• Equal Protection Clause: Provisions within the state constitution that guarantee individuals equal protection under the law, potentially offering broader protections than federal counterparts.

These concepts interplay to influence how employment disputes are adjudicated, especially when constitutional rights are invoked against municipal authorities.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of North Carolina's decision in Michael Mole' v. City of Durham marks a critical juncture in the state's judicial practices concerning discretionary reviews and the precedential authority of appellate decisions. By opting to unpublish the Court of Appeals' opinion and declaring the DRIA, the Court has reinforced its authority to manage its docket and oversee the coherence of legal precedents. However, the lack of a majority decision and the ensuing dissenting opinions reveal a judiciary grappling with balancing transparency, consistency, and judicial discretion.

Moving forward, this judgment may prompt more rigorous scrutiny of when and how appellate opinions are granted precedential status, potentially leading to reforms aimed at enhancing clarity and fairness in the judicial process. It also underscores the ongoing tension between maintaining judicial autonomy and ensuring that legal rules remain predictable and publicly accountable.

Ultimately, Michael Mole' v. City of Durham serves as a pivotal reference point for future cases involving discretionary review and the precedential value of judicial opinions in North Carolina, shaping the state's legal discourse for years to come.