News
Parents’ battle with Charlotte private school reaches top NC court
North Carolina’s highest court will decide whether parents can proceed with a lawsuit against the Charlotte private school that expelled their children in 2021.
News
Turpins respond to private school groups, Catholic Diocese at top NC court
Parents suing a Charlotte private school over the expulsion of their two children responded this week to court filings from the local Catholic Diocese and state and regional groups representing independent schools. Oral arguments are scheduled Oct. 29 at the North Carolina Supreme Court.
News
Court filings lead up to Oct. 29 NC Supreme Court arguments in Turpin case
Parents challenging a Charlotte private school’s decision to expel their two children continue to present legal arguments in filings at the North Carolina Supreme Court. The high court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on Oct. 29.
News
Catholic diocese adds First Amendment argument to Turpin case
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte offered a First Amendment argument Monday while supporting a private school in a case at North Carolina's highest court. Two parents are suing the school over its expulsion of two students in 2021. The state Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on Oct. 29 in the case Turpin v. Charlotte Latin Schools.
News
Parents of expelled Charlotte private school students seek top NC court’s help
Parents of two students kicked out of Charlotte Latin School in 2021 are asking North Carolina’s highest court to permit a lawsuit against the school to move forward. Doug and Nicole Turpin argue that the school breached its contract with the family when it expelled the two Turpin children.
News
Top NC court will hear parents’ case against Charlotte Latin School
The North Carolina Supreme Court will hear a case pitting two parents against a Charlotte private school that expelled their children. A court order Friday confirmed that the state’s top court will hear Doug and Nicole Turpin’s case against Charlotte Latin School.
Opinion
Rehabilitating Lochner a Sharp, Iconoclastic Work
For non-lawyers, the “Lochner” in this book’s title refers to the Supreme Court’s 1905 decision in Lochner v. New York, which author David Bernstein (of George Mason University Law School) argues has been misrepresented terribly by “progressive” intellectuals. Among lawyers, the standard view of Lochner is that it was a perverse triumph of ideological judicial activism over a statute meant to protect workers. Bernstein shows that view to be mistaken, as his subtitle — “defending individual rights against progressive reform” — indicates. Instead of being demonized, the court’s decision should be extolled for its shielding of individual liberty against authoritarianism.
Opinion
Right To Earn a Living Highlights Erosion of Economic Freedom
Is there a right to earn a living? Most Americans would answer, “Of course there is, but … .” Following that “but” you would get a long list of exceptions and qualifications that whittle away at the right, such as “but the individual must have a license as required by law,” “but only if he charges reasonable prices for his work or goods,” or “but he is subject to regulations that protect the public interest.” Pile on enough of those restrictions and the right dies the death of a thousand cuts. Attorney Timothy Sandefur’s book demonstrates that the right to earn a living is succumbing to that fate. The constant encroachments of statutes, regulations, and court decisions has altered the legal landscape to the point where it is more accurate to say that we may ask for permission to work and engage in commerce than that we have a right to do so.
Opinion
Fair Housing Fascism
There’s no more accurate way to describe government’s rules and regulations restricting the freedom of contract between housing buyers and sellers.
Opinion
The Horror: Discriminatory Advertising on the Internet
Modern technology exposes flaws in the arguments for "fair housing" rules.
Opinion
Good Example of Bad Policy
A new state law on chiropractors interferes with the right to contract, forces insurers retroactively to pay for services, and was enacted improperly by legislators in the budget bill. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln . . .
Opinion
No. 118: The Lochner Court, Myth and Reality: Phillips Separates Myth From Reality
Lochner v. New York is an often-mentioned but misunderstood 1905 Supreme Court decision that lends its name to this excellent analysis of constitutional jurisprudence by Professor Michael J. Phillips. Phillips, professor emeritus of business administration at Indiana University, has written probably the best book by a nonlawyer on any aspect of constitutional law, and the best survey of the Lochner line of cases by anyone. This book is a penetrating revisionist history of a key period in our legal history.
