View this post on the web at [link removed]
House Bill 377 [ [link removed] ] would let North Carolina’s Chief Justice temporarily suspend a trial judge only after the Judicial Standards Commission finds that keeping that judge on the bench poses an immediate and irreparable threat.
Republican lawmakers backed it as a public-safety safeguard. High-profile cases involving repeat violent offenders released by activist judges and went on to commit horrific crimes made the stakes impossible to ignore.
Governor Josh Stein says the bill threatens judicial independence. That makes for a powerful veto message, but it leaves out much of what the bill actually says.
Stein vetoed [ [link removed] ]HB 377 Monday, warning that it would give North Carolina’s Chief Justice sweeping authority to suspend elected trial judges without pay. His argument is straightforward: judges are elected, judges must be independent, and one judge should not be able to threaten another judge’s livelihood.
Fair enough.
But judicial independence is not judicial immunity, and HB 377 does not give the Chief Justice a giant red button labeled “Punish Judge.”
What happens when potential misconduct emerges and the normal disciplinary process takes time?
There Is a Gatekeeper
Start with the actual text, which is generally a useful place to start when describing legislation.
The Chief Justice cannot simply dislike a ruling and send a District Court judge home without a paycheck. A judge must already be the subject of a Judicial Standards Commission investigation or proceeding.
Then the Commission must find that allowing the judge to remain in office would cause “immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage” to the public or the administration of justice. It must then recommend suspension before the Chief Justice can act.
That is what Stein described as the Commission’s “small role.”
Who knew?
The bill also requires due process before an unpaid suspension. If the proceeding ends without the Supreme Court suspending or removing the judge, the suspension ends and compensation is restored.
Those are the safeguards surrounding the very power Stein portrays as dangerously unchecked.
Judges Cannot Be Punished Simply for a Ruling
Existing North Carolina law says the Judicial Standards Commission cannot investigate a complaint based substantially on a trial judge’s legal ruling before appellate review. The statute draws the line clearly: the Commission reviews judicial conduct, not matters of law.
That matters because the nightmare scenario is obvious: a conservative Chief Justice punishes a liberal judge, or vice versa, because of an unpopular ruling.
That would be dangerous. It would also require ignoring the law.
An ordinary disagreement over bond, sentencing, evidence or another ruling does not become misconduct because politicians are angry. HB 377 applies when a misconduct investigation is already underway and the Commission concludes that keeping the judge in office would cause immediate and irreparable harm.
That is quite a distance from “the Chief Justice can suspend anybody she wants.”
North Carolina Has Seen What Failure Looks Like
North Carolinians have watched criminal defendants with lengthy records cycle through the justice system and return to the streets, sometimes with devastating consequences.
The most notorious recent example ended with the killing of 23-year-old Iryna Zarutska on Charlotte’s light rail in August 2025. Authorities charged Decarlos Brown Jr. with murdering her after he had previously been arrested and released on a written promise to appear.
That release was made by a magistrate, not a District or Superior Court judge, so HB 377 would not apply to that magistrate. That distinction matters.
But the episode still forced North Carolina to confront a broader question: what happens when potential misconduct emerges and the normal disciplinary process takes time?
Under Stein’s veto, the answer is essentially: keep the process moving and hope nothing catastrophic happens.
The General Assembly decided that “hope for the best” might not qualify as a public-safety strategy.
Elections Are Not the Only Answer
Stein argues that because North Carolina elects most judges, removing them should “first and foremost” be left to voters.
There is a problem with that argument: the North Carolina Constitution itself provides for judicial accountability outside elections.
Article IV directs the General Assembly to establish a procedure for censuring and removing judges for willful misconduct, persistent failure to perform duties, certain criminal convictions and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
So an election does not give a judge an untouchable mandate until the next election.
Stein also compares judges to legislators and Council of State officials. But judges are not legislators, which is presumably why the Constitution gives the judiciary its own disciplinary system rather than telling House members to put on robes and sort it out.
Independence Requires Accountability
Stein is right that judicial independence is essential. A judge should never fear losing a paycheck because a powerful politician dislikes a decision.
But HB 377 does not set that standard.
It requires an existing investigation, a finding of immediate and irreparable harm, a Commission recommendation and due process before the Chief Justice can impose a temporary suspension. Permanent suspension or removal remains a separate matter requiring action by the Supreme Court.
That is not unchecked power. It is a check on judicial power, surrounded by safeguards.
Judges wield extraordinary authority over defendants, victims and public safety. Independence protects them from political retaliation, but it should not protect them from accountability when the state’s own judicial watchdog concludes their continued service poses immediate and irreparable harm.
The General Assembly should override this veto.
Unsubscribe [link removed]?
