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.  

Doug and Nicole Turpin argue that the private school kicked out two Turpin children after Doug Turpin questioned changes in Charlotte Latin’s operations. The school has responded that its contract with the Turpins allowed for the students’ dismissal when school leaders could not maintain a productive working relationship with the parents.

Lower courts have ruled in favor of Charlotte Latin and against the Turpins.

The case has attracted attention from two Republican congressmen and 11 GOP members of the North Carolina General Assembly. They support the Turpins in the legal battle.

The Catholic Diocese filed paperwork Monday seeking to submit a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Charlotte Latin.

“Although the Diocese agrees with Charlotte Latin that it had an enforceable contractual right to terminate Plaintiffs’ children’s enrollment when — in its sole discretion — Charlotte Latin determined that Plaintiffs had made a collaborative relationship impossible or had seriously interfered with its mission, the Diocese also presents this Court with an alternative argument, made by no existing party, that underscores the broader significance of this case for private religious schools across North Carolina and highlights First Amendment concerns that no party has addressed in depth,” wrote lawyer Joshua Davey.

“The Diocese operates a network of Catholic schools that, like Charlotte Latin, require enrollment contracts expressly reserving the right to terminate enrollment when, among other reasons, parental conduct undermines the school’s mission,” Davey added. “These contractual provisions are essential tools that allow religious schools to carry out their faith-based educational missions while providing clarity and transparency to families who voluntarily choose to enroll.”

“[E]nforcing such provisions as written not only accords with longstanding principles of North Carolina contract law but also avoids entangling courts in religious questions and protects the constitutional autonomy of private religious schools under the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” the court filing continued.

The North Carolina Association of Independent Schools and Southern Association of Independent Schools also back Charlotte Latin in the legal battle.

The Turpins challenge “what has long been understood as a fundamental aspect of freedom of contract, i.e., the rights of independent schools, like Defendant-Appellee Charlotte Latin Schools, Inc. (‘Latin’), to manage their relationships with parents by contract,” the associations’ lawyers wrote Monday. “Appellants alleged sweeping legal theories that, if allowed to proceed, would undermine the bedrock fundamental right of freedom of contract and would lead to litigation in an area of longstanding, settled law. Appellants’ legal theories also would imperil the First Amendment’s freedom of association by inserting lawyers and courts where they do not belong.”

Charlotte Latin filed its own brief July 28 defending the decision to kick out the Turpin children.

“Unlike public schools, the relationship between students, parents, and Latin are governed by contract,” the school’s lawyers wrote. “Like other businesses, consumers have the right to decide if they want to do business with Latin. Similarly, Latin has the right to decide if it wants to do business with consumers.”

“In its contract, Latin expressly reserved the right to terminate its agreement with parents if Latin determined that a positive, collaborative working relationship was impossible. That is all that happened here,” the school’s brief continued.

US Reps. Richard Hudson and Pat Harrigan led the list of names on an amicus, or friend-of-the-court, brief filed in May supporting the Turpins.

“When private schools unfairly retaliate against students and their parents, can the schools be held accountable?” lawyer Troy Shelton asked in the friend-of-the-court brief. “That’s where Charlotte Latin broke its promises, smeared the Turpins in public, and expelled the children. If the decision below stands, it grants schools unfettered discretion to engage in such retaliatory conduct, undermining the foundational trust between families and schools in North Carolina.”

The brief from elected officials and interested groups focuses on two issues, Shelton wrote. “First, it examines the inherent unfairness faced by parents and students when private schools expel students under retaliatory or arbitrary circumstances,” he explained. “Second, it advocates for the application of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 — North Carolina’s unfair and deceptive practices statute — as a vital remedy for safeguarding the commercial relationship between private schools and the families they serve.”

“The Turpins’ ordeal exemplifies the vulnerability of families in private educational settings,” Shelton added. “After following the school’s prescribed channels for dialogue about curricular concerns, the Turpins were met with severe retaliation — their children were summarily expelled and the parents were defamed. The Court of Appeals’ decision absolved Latin from accountability for such conduct by dismissing claims at the pleading stage, before any factual development could occur.”

In addition to Hudson and Harrigan, the brief had support from state Sens. Brad Overcash, Dana Jones, Ted Alexander, and Amy Galey. State representatives also endorsed the brief: David Willis, Celeste Cairns, Grant Campbell, Brian Echevarria, Neal Jackson, Keith Kidwell, and Heather Rhyne.

Doug Turpin’s group Coalition for Liberty is listed as one of 12 organizations supporting the brief. Others are seven local chapters of Moms for Liberty, American Center for Education and Knowledge, Color Us United, Future Prep Educational Services, National School Boards Leadership Council, New Tolerance Campaign, Our Duty USA, Palm Beach Freedom Institute, Patriots Business Alliance, United Families International, and Advocates for Faith and Freedom.

“Doug and Nicole Turpin sent their children … to Charlotte Latin expecting them to flourish,” the family’s lawyers wrote in a brief filed April 24. “Instead, Latin expelled them — abruptly, without warning, and without process.”

“The reason? Doug spoke up,” the court filing continued. “He followed the school’s express invitation, and the process set out in its enrollment contract, to raise concerns and did so  respectfully, urging a return to the school’s own stated values. For that, Latin severed its relationship with Doug and Nicole, blindsiding the family by expelling their children without warning at a meeting billed merely as a discussion.”

“This case asks whether a private school can invite open dialogue and then expel students in retaliation for their parents’ protected speech — while insisting its contracts grant it unlimited discretion to do so. The answer, under North Carolina law, must be no,” the Turpins’ lawyers argued.

The state Appeals Court’s April 2024 decision in the case marked the second time appellate judges had ruled against the Turpins. Unlike the first unanimous ruling in January 2024, the second decision split judges, 2-1, and produced three separate opinions.

The Turpins argued that the school violated its contract after the parents raised questions about changes in Charlotte Latin’s focus. The school responded that the Turpins violated provisions of the school’s “parent-school partnership” with ongoing complaints about Charlotte Latin’s operations.

“On appeal, plaintiffs contend that they ‘sufficiently alleged a breach of contract, and the trial court was wrong to conclude otherwise’ because ‘the court ignored the agreement’s plain language and disregarded Latin’s obligation to apply those agreements in good faith.’ We disagree, because the plain and unambiguous language of the enrollment contracts — and pursuant to the enrollment contracts, the Parent-School Partnership — allowed Latin to terminate plaintiffs’ enrollment contracts at Latin’s discretion,” wrote Judge Carolyn Thompson for the court’s majority.

Judge John Arrowood supported Thompson’s majority opinion but wrote a concurrence.

“I agree that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege a breach of contract because the plain and unambiguous language in the enrollment contracts, which state that ‘the School reserves the right to discontinue enrollment if it concludes that the actions of a parent/guardian make such a relationship impossible or seriously interfere with the School’s mission[,]’ allowed the school to terminate plaintiffs’ 2021 enrollment contracts at its discretion,” Arrowood wrote. “Because I believe that allowing this case, in its current state, to advance further would severely undermine the fundamental right to freely contract in North Carolina, which is a bedrock principle of North Carolina law, I write separately to highlight those concerns.”

“North Carolina ‘recognizes that, unless contrary to public policy or prohibited by statute, freedom of contract is a fundamental constitutional right,’” Arrowood explained. “Thus, absent such policies or prohibitive statutes, it is beyond question that parties can contract as they see fit and that courts must enforce those contracts as written to preserve that fundamental right.

“In my view, these enrollment contracts between a private school and those who wish to attend that school do not violate any public policy, statutory prohibitions, or protections,” the concurring opinion continued. “Therefore, this is a case of basic contract interpretation.”

Thompson and Arrowood are Democrats. Judge Julee Flood, a Republican, dissented from the ruling favoring Charlotte Latin.

“The line between the right to terminate a private contract and a contract breach is sometimes mercurial,” Flood wrote. “While the majority would draw that line at the point at which Plaintiffs were accused of certain behaviors in violation of provisions of their private school enrollment contracts, I conclude that the mandates of a Rule 12(b)(6) review are such that we must decline to draw that line prematurely.”

Rule 12(b)(6) involves testing the legal sufficiency of a complaint.

“Treating the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Complaint as true, and viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs made such allegations that they sufficiently stated a claim for breach of contract,” Flood wrote.

“Although the majority assesses Plaintiffs’ conduct as making impossible a ‘positive, collaborative working relationship between the School[,]’ or alternatively, as ‘seriously interfer[ing] with the School’s mission[,]’ such that Defendants were justified in their termination of Plaintiffs’ enrollment contracts, I conclude that this determination is premature as it necessarily involves findings of fact,” the dissent added.  

“It is not within our appellate purview to determine at this stage in the proceeding whether Defendants were justified in their termination of Plaintiffs’ enrollment contracts,” Flood wrote.

The post Catholic diocese adds First Amendment argument to Turpin case first appeared on Carolina Journal.

The post Catholic diocese adds First Amendment argument to Turpin case appeared first on First In Freedom Daily.