At stake in two cases now before the North Carolina Supreme Court is more than just who appoints state officials; it is the constitutional balance of power that determines how North Carolina’s government functions. The North Carolina Supreme Court has agreed to hear two constitutional cases that will determine the scope of the Governor’s appointment authority and the General Assembly’s ability to restructure executive branch power. Together, the two cases, Stein v. Berger and Stein v. Hall, address whether the legislature may limit the Governor’s authority to fill appellate judicial vacancies, transfer appointment authority for certain executive positions, and alter the composition of numerous state boards and commissions. The Court’s decisions will have significant implications for the separation of powers under the North Carolina Constitution and the balance of authority between the legislative and executive branches.

These cases are particularly important to the Chamber Legal Institute because they could establish or redefine the constitutional framework governing the structure and operation of state government, depending on how the NC Supreme Court rules. Questions surrounding appointment authority, executive accountability, and the independence of state boards and commissions affect the stability and predictability of North Carolina’s regulatory environment, which is critically important to the state’s business community. The Court’s rulings may also further clarify or potentially reshape key separation-of-powers precedents that have guided state government for the past decade.

The timing of the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the cases is also noteworthy. The parties filed petitions for discretionary review in Stein v. Berger in November 2025, and in Stein v. Hall in February 2026, but the Supreme Court did not allow review until June. Just two weeks later, the General Assembly passed the state’s $34 billion budget, which includes a shift in gubernatorial appointment power. Under the new law, the Governor will lose authority over 84 appointments, while the General Assembly will gain 24 appointment powers, and various Council of State offices will receive authority over an additional 35 appointments[1]. The new total reflects changes in appointment authority as well as board size since the new budget also restructures the membership of some boards or commissions.

One of the implications of these cases is the General Assembly’s authority to use the structure of boards and commissions to check the exercise of executive authority over important areas of State government. Practically speaking, the restructuring at issue in the Stein v. Berger case as well as in the new budget diffuses power over the boards and commissions and creates more venues for the business community to advocate for its preferences.

The Supreme Court’s decisions could determine whether these and future legislative changes to appointment authority are consistent with the North Carolina Constitution, making the cases especially consequential for the future structure of state government. The Chamber Legal Institute will be monitoring these cases closely as they move through the Supreme Court and will keep members informed about the decisions and their potential impact on North Carolina businesses and the state’s legal and regulatory landscape. As with other cases involving the constitutional structure of state government, the Chamber Legal Institute will evaluate opportunities to participate where the interests of North Carolina’s business community are directly affected.

[1] Chris Cooper highlights the shift in appointment power with a helpful chart.