Mitchell v. University of North Carolina Board of Governors
North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed that a state university properly followed its handbook procedures when terminating a professor, but overruled the intermediate court’s reasoning in this and several other cases that an agency’s interpretation of its own rules is entitled to deference. The court clarified that state courts interpreting state administrative regulations must employ de novo review; they can look to an agency’s interpretation as an aid in ascertaining the meaning of a regulation, but the agency’s view is never binding on the court. The majority declined to address whether a letter the professor wrote to a department chair using offensive language, which formed part of the basis of his termination, was protected First Amendment speech.
Related Commentary
State Court Oral Arguments to Watch for in February
Issues on the dockets include a fetal heartbeat law, police use of force, and academic freedom.