North Carolina’s Only Black Supreme Court Justice Being Investigated For Exposing Racial Inequality

North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Anita Earls is filing suit against the state’s Judicial Standards Commission for investigating her. An important relevant fact here is that Earls is the only Black judge on NC’s highest court and one of just two Democrats making up the seven members total. Another important fact is that I worked to help elect Earls. So I personally think she is quite an outstanding woman! 

So what prompted all of this? Earls believes that this investigation is improper and could possibly be politically motivated. She has spoken recently about diversity, God forbid! In interviews, according to WRAL News, she discussed the lack of diversity among the highest court’s staff, something that seems very believable to any of us who have ever worked in the legal field. But this is also a fact. She had mentioned that 14 of the 15 law clerks for the state’s Supreme Court are white and none are Black. She also commented on a recent decision to end bias training for court employees. Lastly, she accused fellow justices of disrespecting her. That part may be the most troubling for Earls, because I do not think that certain judicial entities would take those particular accusations too lightly. But she should be able to stand up for herself and for diversity.

Earls’ own attorney, Press Millen, is leaning into using freedom of speech to defend Earls. In a statement provided to WRAL, Millen said, “The First Amendment provides me and every American the right to free speech and to bring to light imperfections and unfairness in our political and judicial systems.” Brittany Pinkham, the executive director of the Judicial Standards Commission (which is investigating Earls) released her own statement: “The Commission is statutorily obligated to investigate all instances of alleged judicial misconduct and cannot comment on pending investigations.” 

I guess I am confused about how ‘serious’ this investigation against Earls is. If they are obligated to do this because she said she was being treated unfairly by colleagues, then that would be one thing. But it does not sound like this is an investigation into her claims, it is an investigation of her for talking about inequities.

Millen also talked about the potential political element of the investigation, saying: “The lawsuit against the Judicial Standards Commission comes after it has undergone numerous changes under Chief Justice Paul Newby and at a time when state Senate leader Phil Berger Sr. is proposing significant changes to how the Commission members are chosen.” Berger is also on the anti-woke train, having been against the non-existent influx of things like “CRT.” So I wouldn’t trust anything that he has a large role in.

Much of the discussion around Earls’ statements involves protecting the integrity of the courts. From the Supreme Court of the United States down to every level of the judiciary system, there does seem to be a lack of trust between courts and the public. The Judicial Standards Commission told Earls that its investigation was launched in part because judges should behave “in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” This statement sounds fine on the surface, but it highlights a deeper issue, one that Earls pointed to in a reply, saying “Public confidence in the judiciary is compromised when the court system does not reflect the population it serves.”

There is such a backlash now whenever people try to reveal or even just discuss societal inequities and inequalities. Just look at how hard some very loud segments of the population work to push the idea of “reverse racism.” Living in North Carolina, it definitely seems like state Republicans are obsessed with those who discuss race more than actual racists or the very real problems in society that are caused by racism. And I don’t think they care about promoting diversity. So someone like Earls using her platform to talk about a troubling lack of diversity is, in and of itself, seen as partial or biased. I just hope Earls’ career isn’t put in jeopardy. The commission has a range of power, with the harshest disciplinary actions at its disposal being the ability to remove judges from office and ban them from serving in the future. Justice Earls is a prominent figure and she has provided a great voice on the court, so seeing her punished for speaking out would be a huge blow to everyone who cares about these issues.

(featured image: arsenisspyros/Getty Images)