Constitutional – Open Courts Clause – Disparate Impact

We rejected constitutional challenges seeking removal of a Confederate monument located outside the county courthouse.

We affirmed summary judgment for the county.

Plaintiffs, civil rights organizations and local residents, argued that a Confederate monument violated several provisions of the North Carolina Constitution, primarily the Open Courts Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, by conveying a message of racial exclusion and deterring Black residents from accessing the courts. They also contended that the county could remove the monument notwithstanding the state’s Monument Protection Law, which generally prohibits removal of historical monuments on public property.

We first held that the Open Courts Clause was not violated. That provision guarantees access to functioning courts and public judicial proceedings, but it has historically been interpreted to ensure operational access, such as courts being open, proceedings being public, and remedies being available, not to regulate external symbols or public perceptions of fairness. Relying heavily on prior precedent, we concluded that even if the monument conveyed a racially offensive or intimidating message, plaintiffs failed to show that it actually interfered with court operations or denied access to judicial processes. We rejected plaintiffs’ argument that psychological barriers to courthouse access are equivalent to physical barriers, holding that subjective perceptions alone are insufficient to establish a constitutional violation under the Open Courts Clause.

Turning to equal protection, we held that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the required elements of both discriminatory intent and a meaningful disparate impact. While we accepted that plaintiffs had presented substantial evidence of discriminatory intent behind the monument’s historical placement, we concluded that intent alone is insufficient. Plaintiffs were also required to show that the monument caused concrete, legally cognizable harm, such as denial of rights or unequal treatment in court proceedings. The evidence presented, including expert reports and surveys, showed that Black residents reported more negative feelings toward Confederate symbols than white residents, but the court found this insufficient to establish a “meaningful disparate impact.” The evidence did not demonstrate that any individuals were actually prevented from accessing the courts, treated differently in judicial proceedings, or otherwise deprived of legal rights.

We also rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the county’s refusal to remove the monument constituted discriminatory action, noting that the Monument Protection Law constrained the county’s authority and made its intent legally irrelevant. Ultimately, we concluded that plaintiffs’ claims rested on subjective perceptions and emotional responses rather than legally actionable harm. Because plaintiffs failed to establish constitutional violations under either the Open Courts or Equal Protection Clauses, we affirmed summary judgment in favor of Gaston County.

Affirmed.

NAACP v. Gaston County (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-057-26, 44 pp.) (Donna Stroud, J.) Appealed from Gaston County Superior Court (Robert C. Ervin, J.) Tin, Fulton, Walker & Owen, PLLC, by Gagan Gupta and Abraham Rubert-Schewel and the Paynter Law Firm, PLLC, by Stuart M. Paynter and Cheryl D. Comer, for plaintiffs-appellants. Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, by Bradley K. Overcash and Emily L. Poe, for defendant-appellee. North Carolina Court of Appeals