North Carolina Law Review

The North Carolina Law Review and the NCLR Forum have reopened and are currently accepting article submissions for Volume 104. Submit to the North Carolina Law Review here: https://lnkd.in/gmrfp8PN Submit to the North Carolina Law Review Forum here: https://lnkd.in/gYeAQQ_M

In her Case Brief published in 103-1, Megan M. Rash analyzes the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Carolina Youth Action Project v. Wilson that held South Carolina’s “disorderly conduct” and “disturbing schools” laws were unconstitutionally vague due to the outlawed conduct being too broad and impossible to distinguish from typical child-like behaviors seen in grade schools. She explores these types of laws in other states, including in North Carolina, and discusses the potential implications of the Fourth Circuit’s decision in other jurisdictions. Check it out on the Forum here: https://lnkd.in/gW9B_qq3

In his Case Brief published in 103-1, Sam W. Scheipers analyzes the Supreme Court of North Carolina’s decision in State v. Flow that determined a criminal defendant’s statutory right to a hearing on their competency to stand trial was satisfied, even though the trial court only considered whether the defendant’s actions were voluntary. He argues that in the aftermath of the court’s decision, criminal defendants—particularly those who are neurodivergent or mentally ill—are at risk of having their right to stand trial only when competent subverted to promote judicial efficiency. Check it out on the Forum here: https://lnkd.in/gW9B_qq3

In his Case Brief published in 103-1, Sam W. Scheipers analyzes the Supreme Court of North Carolina’s decision in In re R.A.F. that held the unilateral dismissal of provisional counsel by the court in termination of parental right cases does not require considerations of fundamental fairness. He argues that eliminating the “failure-to-appear exception” in Chapter 7B of the General Statutes of North Carolina is the decisive action necessary to ensure that the state’s statutorily enumerated legislative policy is realized and fundamentally fair procedures are provided to all parents facing the “civil death penalty.” Check it out on the Forum here: https://lnkd.in/gW9B_qq3

In her Case Brief published in 103-1, Kathryn Turk analyzes the Supreme Court of North Carolina’s decision in State v. Abbit that deemed evidence implicating a third party inadmissible because even though it tended to show a third party’s involvement, it was not inconsistent with the defendant’s guilt. She argues that the decision establishes a new hurdle for defendants hoping to introduce evidence implicating a third party, which could affect the accuracy of our criminal justice system. Check it out on the Forum here: https://lnkd.in/gW9B_qq3

In his Recent Development published in 103-1, Jason Naulty explains how judicial standards like the one introduced in Kelly v. Town of Abingdon that depend on an employer’s perception of an employee’s disability can produce incongruous results for those with non-visible disabilities. He then explores what those with non-visible disabilities can do to avail themselves of ADA protection despite a potentially higher burden. Check it out here: https://lnkd.in/gHv758VF

The Vol. 103 Board of Editors is proud to present the Vol. 104 Board of Editors, a talented group of students ready to forge their own path while carrying on the legacy of this institution.

In her Comment published in 103-1, Gabrielle Schust examines the implications of post-election party switching on representative democracy and argues that current remedies in North Carolina are insufficient. She recommends that the proposed “Voter Fraud Prevention Act,” with minor changes, would be an effective mechanism for limiting the injurious effects of post-election party switching on representative democracy in North Carolina. Check it out here: https://lnkd.in/gHv758VF

Volume 103, Issue 1 has been posted to the N.C. L. Rev. website at https://lnkd.in/gHv758VF, and new case briefs can be found on the Forum at https://lnkd.in/gW9B_qq3.

In his Recent Development published in 102-6, John Choi argues that the Supreme Court of North Carolina erroneously applied the reasoning of precedential cases in reaching its decision in In re J.M., and examines the costly implications the court’s decision will have for parents looking to reunify with their children in the future. Check it out here: https://lnkd.in/gHv758VF