In the Matter of District Court Administrative Order

Among the opinions filed by the North Carolina Supreme Court last Friday was an order captioned “In the Matter of District Court Administrative Order.” Without providing any factual background regarding the order, the court vacated in “each and every respect” an administrative order entered April 25, 2011 by “Judge Jerry A. Jolly in District Court, Brunswick County.” Chief Justice Parker and two other justices, Martin and Timmons-Goodson, recused.  Most of the court’s three-paragraph order recites language from In re Alamance County Court Facilities, 329 N.C. 84 (1991), describing the constraints that the separation of powers clause in the state constitution imposes upon a court’s exercise of its inherent powers. The supreme court did not explain how these principles applied to its review of the administrative order, though the court’s citation of N.C. Const. art. IV §10 (setting forth the duties of the district court), and § 18 (setting forth the duties of the district attorney) (both, incidentally, offices created under the Judicial article of the state constitution) provide some clues about the conflicting sources of authority.  The parties’ briefs, available here and here, fill in the missing facts, or, more-precisely, each party’s version of the facts, which, on many points, are hotly contested. A few matters are not in dispute.  A little more than a month before entry of the administrative order at issue, a traffic administration court was launched in Brunswick County.  Such administrative traffic courts are common throughout the state, though the particulars regarding how such courts are conducted [...]