Lawsuit Dismissal Sparks Plans for Appeal

Lawyers representing a North Carolina nonprofit and two paralegals announced plans to appeal after a federal judge dismissed their lawsuit challenging the state’s legal practice regulations. The North Carolina Justice for All Project (JFAP) filed the suit earlier this year against five state prosecutors and the former president of the North Carolina State Bar Association, alleging that restrictions on non-lawyers providing legal advice infringe on constitutional rights.

Claims of First Amendment Violations

The plaintiffs argued that North Carolina’s rules prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law violate the First Amendment. These rules, they claimed, hinder their initiative to offer affordable and free “simple” legal advice to residents. Their proposed services aimed to help individuals complete court-created forms in areas like domestic violence, child custody, and small estate administration—areas where access to affordable legal assistance is often limited.

The lawsuit sought to prevent the enforcement of these rules as they apply to their plans, highlighting the potential to close the access-to-justice gap for low-income individuals.

Federal Judge Upholds Legal Practice Rules

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Terrence Boyle ruled in favor of the defendants, affirming the validity of the state’s legal practice regulations. In his decision, Judge Boyle stated that the rules are a reasonable approach to regulating the legal profession and ensuring quality legal services.

“North Carolina’s current limits on the practice of law and the provision of legal advice reasonably fit within its interest in regulating the legal profession,” Judge Boyle wrote. He noted that the regulations do not prevent the nonprofit or paralegals from providing general legal information or assisting clients with forms under attorney supervision.

Plaintiffs Express Disappointment and Resolve to Appeal

Paul Sherman, an attorney with the Institute for Justice representing JFAP, expressed disappointment with the ruling but remained determined to pursue the case. “JFAP has a First Amendment right to provide advice about common legal issues, and North Carolinians have a right to hear that advice,” Sherman said in a statement on Wednesday. The group intends to appeal the decision to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

State Officials Decline to Comment

The North Carolina Department of Justice, which represents the five district attorneys named in the lawsuit, declined to comment on the case. Similarly, lawyers for Todd Brown, the former president of the North Carolina State Bar who was sued in his official capacity, did not respond to requests for comment. The bar’s current president, Matthew Smith, assumed office in October.

Broader Implications for Access to Justice

This case underscores the ongoing debate over the balance between regulating the legal profession and expanding access to affordable legal services. The outcome of the appeal could have significant implications for the way legal advice is delivered to underserved communities in North Carolina and beyond.

The post North Carolina Nonprofit to Appeal Dismissal of Legal Practice Challenge first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

A Legacy of Excellence

Established by Wallace Murchison and James C. Fox, the firm has flourished under the guidance of legal luminaries. Their dedication to providing unparalleled legal services laid the foundation for enduring success. With a team of 19 attorneys, many of whom bring expertise from large law firms, Murchison, Taylor & Gibson, PLLC continues its tradition of excellence.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Core Values

At Murchison, Taylor & Gibson, PLLC, three core values guide their practice: excellence, efficiency, and fairness. The firm is committed to delivering top-notch legal representation, ensuring that each client receives personalized attention and effective solutions to their legal challenges. Emphasis on efficiency allows them to provide prompt and responsive service, addressing clients’ needs with agility and precision. Furthermore, they believe in offering services at fair and reasonable prices, ensuring exceptional value for clients’ investment.

Recognition and Accolades

The dedication to excellence has not gone unnoticed. Murchison, Taylor & Gibson, PLLC, and its attorneys have been recognized for outstanding work in various legal publications and rankings. Featured in Business North Carolina’s Legal Elite list and North Carolina Super Lawyers® magazine, their expertise and contributions to the legal profession are acknowledged. Additionally, U.S. News has recognized them as one of the “Best Law Firms,” particularly in areas such as Real Estate Law, Corporate Law, and Employment Law – Management.

A Collaborative Approach

The firm believes in the power of teamwork and collaboration. Attorneys work closely together, leveraging their diverse expertise and perspectives to deliver comprehensive legal solutions. Whether navigating complex business transactions or advocating for clients in litigation matters, the collaborative approach ensures that clients receive the highest caliber of representation.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Practice Areas

Murchison, Taylor & Gibson, PLLC offers a comprehensive range of legal services, including but not limited to:

• Agribusiness
• Business Law & Taxation
• Health Care
• Labor & Employment
• Litigation
• Mergers & Acquisitions
• Real Estate & Development
• Wills, Trusts, Estate Planning & Estate Administration

Why You’ll Love Working at Murchison, Taylor & Gibson, PLLC

Dynamic and Engaging Work Environment

The firm offers a dynamic work environment where every day presents new challenges and opportunities for growth. With a diverse client base and a wide range of practice areas, employees find their work fresh, interesting, and intellectually stimulating.

Collaborative Team Environment

Joining the firm means becoming part of a collaborative team of experienced attorneys, paralegals, and support staff. They value teamwork, innovation, and shared success, fostering a supportive and enjoyable work culture where everyone’s contributions are valued and appreciated.

Opportunities for Advancement

Murchison, Taylor & Gibson, PLLC is committed to helping team members advance in their careers and reach their full potential. Whether the goal is to become a partner at the firm, take on leadership roles, or specialize in a particular area of law, they provide the resources, support, and guidance needed to achieve professional aspirations.

Knowledge is power, and knowing your earning potential is no exception. Check out LawCrossing’s salary surveys to gain valuable insights.

Commitment to Work-Life Balance

While taking work seriously, the firm understands the importance of maintaining a healthy work-life balance. They offer flexible work arrangements, generous vacation and personal time off, and other benefits to help employees manage their professional and personal responsibilities effectively.

Competitive Compensation and Benefits

In addition to a competitive salary, Murchison, Taylor & Gibson, PLLC provides a comprehensive benefits package, including health insurance, retirement plans, paid time off, and other perks designed to support overall well-being and financial security.

Proud Tradition of Excellence

With a legacy of over five decades, Murchison, Taylor & Gibson, PLLC has earned a reputation for excellence in the legal community. By joining their team, individuals become part of a proud tradition of providing high-quality legal services and making a positive impact on the lives of clients and the community.

In conclusion, working at Murchison, Taylor & Gibson, PLLC offers the opportunity to grow professionally, collaborate with talented colleagues, enjoy competitive compensation and benefits, and be part of a firm with a proud tradition of excellence. Passionate individuals about the law seeking rewarding career opportunities are invited to join the team and experience the many benefits of working with them.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Unveiling Excellence: Murchison, Taylor & Gibson, PLLC – A Legacy of Legal Distinction first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein has taken a firm stance against a lawsuit filed by a nonprofit organization aimed at preventing the state from enforcing unauthorized legal practice regulations. The lawsuit, brought forth by the North Carolina Justice for All Project and two paralegals, seeks to bar the state from applying these rules to their initiative of offering free and paid legal guidance on filling out court forms for matters like domestic violence, child custody, and small estate administration.

Attorney General’s Motion to Dismiss

In a recent motion to dismiss, Attorney General Stein emphasized that his office does not play a role in enforcing unauthorized practice rules. Instead, he pointed out that such powers are vested in other governmental entities, such as district attorneys and the North Carolina State Bar. The motion underscores that without the threat of prosecution from his office, the plaintiffs lack standing to sue the attorney general directly. Moreover, Stein asserted immunity under the 11th Amendment, highlighting the disconnect between his office and the enforcement of the statutes in question.

Constitutional Free Speech Rights and Access to Justice

The plaintiffs, invoking their constitutional rights under the First Amendment, argue that their initiative aims to bridge the access-to-justice gap for lower-income individuals. By providing simplified legal advice, they contend they are exercising their right to free speech. Attorney Paul Sherman from the Institute for Justice, representing the plaintiffs, stressed the importance of upholding these rights, stating that similar cases across the country have recognized the application of the First Amendment in occupational licensing laws.

Precedents and Similar Cases

This legal battle in North Carolina mirrors similar disputes seen elsewhere. For instance, the Institute for Justice previously represented Upsolve, a nonprofit organization, in a case against the New York attorney general over unauthorized practice rules. In another relevant development, the South Carolina Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of the state’s NAACP branch, allowing them to train non-lawyer volunteers to offer limited legal advice to tenants facing eviction.

For the plaintiffs: Paul Sherman of the Institute for Justice; and Vince Eisinger of Cranfill Sumner
For North Carolina: Carl Newman of the North Carolina Department of Justice

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post North Carolina Attorney General Seeks Dismissal of Lawsuit Challenging Unauthorized Legal Practice Rules first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

A federal judge has intervened to prevent North Carolina from implementing a more stringent voter verification process for individuals registering and casting ballots on the same day. The judge sided with the state Democratic Party, concurring that the proposed changes could lead to the rejection of eligible votes.

Background: Republican-Backed Voting Restrictions

The backdrop to this legal battle stems from the Republican-controlled state legislature’s efforts to impose a series of voting restrictions. Last year, the majority successfully passed these measures, overriding the veto of Democratic Governor Roy Cooper. Notable changes included the elimination of a post-election grace period for counting absentee ballots and the stripping of the governor’s authority to appoint members to the state elections board.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Context: Post-2020 Election Republican Initiatives

This legislative move is part of a broader trend seen across the United States following the 2020 presidential election, during which then-President Donald Trump baselessly attributed his loss to widespread fraud. With Trump positioned as a likely contender for the 2024 Republican nomination, these changes signal potential implications for the upcoming presidential race, particularly in states like North Carolina, expected to be hotly contested.

Impact of the New Law on Same-Day Registration

Under the newly enacted law, individuals utilizing same-day registration are subjected to an additional step—an address confirmation postcard. If the postcard is returned undeliverable, election officials can invalidate the ballot without informing the voter. This departs from the previous practice, where a second postcard was sent, allowing for a legal challenge if both were undeliverable, affording voters an opportunity to object.

Disparities in Voter Impact

Critics argue that the changes disproportionately affect young and minority voters, demographics that typically lean Democratic, as they more frequently utilize same-day registration. The state elections board notes that between 100,000 and 120,000 residents make use of this registration method in presidential election years.

Uncover exclusive insights and strategic approaches through the State of the Lateral Law Firm Legal Market 2024—an in-depth report delving into the intricate patterns and current trends within the lateral law firm market.

Legal Arguments: Lack of Evidence and Address Verification

The federal judge, U.S. District Judge Thomas Schroeder, highlighted a crucial point in his ruling, stating that Republican legislators failed to present any evidence that address verification has successfully filtered out ineligible same-day registrants. Over the last four election cycles, more than 5,000 voters failed address verification.

Republican Response and Ongoing Legal Implications

Republican House of Representatives Speaker Tim Moore downplayed the impact of the court order, emphasizing that the majority of the 2023 law remains in effect. Moore stated, “The court order requires relatively minor changes to one small part of the bill, and we are working with our attorneys and the State Board of Elections to ensure that the entire bill is in effect before the primary and general elections this year.”

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Federal Judge Blocks North Carolina's Voter Verification Change first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The High Court turned down North Carolina’s defense of a controversial state law affecting free speech.

Introduction

In a significant development, the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear North Carolina’s defense of a state law designed to protect businesses, especially farms, from the consequences of hidden-camera investigations by animal rights groups. The law’s constitutionality came into question following a legal challenge led by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and other similar organizations.

The Rejection of Appeals

The Supreme Court decision marks the culmination of a legal battle that pitted North Carolina’s Democratic Attorney General, Josh Stein, and a trade association representing the state’s farmers against a lower court ruling. This ruling asserted that North Carolina’s 2015 law infringes on the First Amendment’s right to free speech when enforced against “newsgathering activities.” While the lower court refrained from making a definitive judgment on the law’s validity in non-newsgathering contexts, it raised important questions about the legislation’s constitutionality.

PETA’s Motive

PETA, a prominent animal rights organization, conducts undercover investigations to unveil the mistreatment of animals across various sectors, including laboratories, farms, slaughterhouses, the pet trade, and the clothing industry. The organization desired to conduct an undercover investigation at the University of North Carolina’s animal testing labs. However, the fear of potential monetary damages stemming from North Carolina’s contentious law, often called an “ag-gag” measure, cast a shadow of uncertainty over their endeavors.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

PETA’s Reaction

PETA celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision to decline the appeals. Jared Goodman, the PETA Foundation’s General Counsel for Animal Law, commented on the verdict, stating, “Ag-Gag laws are a desperate, last-ditch attempt by animal exploiters to smother free speech and hide appalling cruelty to animals from a public that is increasingly disinclined to tolerate it.”

The Ongoing Review

Attorney General Josh Stein’s office has indicated that they are reviewing the Supreme Court’s decision, leaving the door open for further legal action.

Legal Ramifications

North Carolina’s law allows business or property owners to act against “double-agent” workers who surreptitiously record activities or obtain confidential documents from non-public areas. These individuals may be sued for violating their “duty of loyalty to the employer” to recover monetary damages. The state contends that this law safeguards employers against various potential harms, including unauthorized use of trade secrets, campaign strategies, or patient information.

Make informed decisions in real time. Subscribe to JDJournal and be in the know with the latest legal updates.

The Fourth Circuit’s Ruling

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Virginia, issued a pivotal ruling in February that the law infringes upon the First Amendment when enforced against “newsgathering activities.” This specifically applies to the activities pursued by PETA and the other plaintiffs. Attorney General Stein argued before the Supreme Court that “newsgatherers have no First Amendment right to break generally applicable laws,” such as laws against trespassing.

Undercover Investigations in Question

Notably, activists from both ends of the political spectrum carry out undercover investigations to expose wrongdoings. However, they are occasionally accused of selectively editing video footage to portray their subjects negatively.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear North Carolina’s “Ag-Gag” Law Challenge by Animal Rights Groups first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

North Carolina has passed a controversial bill allowing its residents to purchase a handgun without a permit, in a move criticized by the state’s governor, Roy Cooper. The bill, enacted by the House in a 71-46 vote, was passed by the Senate in a party-line vote. The legislation eliminates the need for a permit from the sheriff’s office, thereby removing the background checks currently required for gun purchases. However, those who purchase a gun from a licensed dealer will still need a permit for concealed carry and will also be subject to a national background check.

The bill also allows people to carry guns on “certain school properties” that serve as a place where people attend religious services and school. This has been a particularly contentious issue, with critics arguing that it increases the risk of gun violence in schools and other public spaces. Supporters of the bill argue that it is a victory for Second Amendment rights and will make it easier for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families.

Governor Cooper vetoed the bill last Friday, citing concerns about removing background checks and the potential risk to public safety. He tweeted, “allowing known domestic abusers and mentally ill people to buy handguns put communities at risk.” However, his veto was overridden by the Senate, prompting criticism from gun control advocates and other bill opponents.

The decision to pass the bill has been met with mixed reactions. Supporters of the legislation argue that it is an essential step towards protecting the Second Amendment rights of North Carolinians and that it will make it easier for law-abiding citizens to purchase and carry guns for self-defense. However, opponents of the bill are concerned that it will increase the risk of gun violence and make it easier for dangerous individuals to obtain firearms.

BCG Attorney Search is your one-stop-shop for the most comprehensive legal job listings.

Critics have also argued that the bill is a response to recent mass shootings and other acts of gun violence and represents a failure to address the underlying causes of these incidents. Some have called for increased investment in mental health services and other measures to prevent gun violence rather than simply making it easier for people to obtain firearms.

The bill’s passage will likely significantly affect gun control and public safety in North Carolina. Supporters of the legislation will no doubt welcome the increased access to firearms, while opponents will continue to raise concerns about the potential risks of the bill. Ultimately, the decision will come down to how well the state can balance the need for Second Amendment rights with the need to protect public safety.

The post North Carolina Gun Rights Bill Vetoed by Governor Overridden by Lawmakers first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

North Carolina is on the verge of legalizing medical marijuana consumption after a bill allowing the use of cannabis for medical purposes was approved by the Senate Rules Committee. The bill will now be taken to the Senate floor for a vote after clearing the judiciary and finance panels earlier in the week.

The rules committee is led by Sen. Bill Rabon of Brunswick County, who has been a champion of the medical marijuana issue for several years. The proposed legislation permits people with one of over a dozen debilitating medical conditions, or those with terminal illnesses or in hospice, to use cannabis with a doctor’s express permission. The bill also lays out strict controls for using and distributing medical marijuana.

Ten entities could receive licenses issued by a new commission to grow and process cannabis and sell it at each licensee’s retail outlets. The state will receive payments equal to 10% of monthly revenues.

While supporters of the bill are pleased with the progress made, social conservatives remain ardently opposed to legalizing medical marijuana, citing a lack of evidence that cannabis is an effective medical treatment. However, bill supporters often focus on how medical marijuana relieves symptoms.

Overall, the proposed legislation in North Carolina is a step forward for legalizing medical marijuana in the state. While there are still some opponents of the bill, supporters are hopeful that it will be passed into law and that medical marijuana will soon be available to people who need it.

REFERENCES:

North Carolina bill that would make medical marijuana consumption legal set to reach Senate next week

The post North Carolina Senate to Vote on Legalizing Medical Marijuana Use Next Week first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The North Carolina Supreme Court granted a petition for rehearing two previously decided cases, which different sides of the political spectrum welcomed. The order cited precedent and the North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 31, which allows rehearings when a court overlooks or misapprehends fact or law. 

Interim Chief Counsel of Voting Rights at the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, Jeff Loperfido, commented on the decision, saying, “This certainly isn’t the outcome we’d hoped for…but we will continue to fight for the rights of all people in North Carolina to vote freely and fairly.” 

North Carolina House of Representatives Speaker Tim Moore responded in support of the rehearing, “The people of North Carolina sent a message election day. They rejected the judicial activism of the outgoing majority. I am committed to fighting for the rule of law and the will of the voters. It’s time for voter ID to be law, as the people have demanded.” 

Two cases will now be reheard: Harper v. Hall and Holmes v. Moore. In Harper, the court ruled that a proposed North Carolina redistricting map violated the state’s Free Elections Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and Freedom of Speech and Assembly Clauses. Meanwhile, in Holmes, the court struck down Senate Bill 824, which required voters to present a photo ID to cast their ballot. The court ruled that the statute was motivated by a “racially discriminatory purpose” and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the North Carolina Constitution.

Justices Michael R. Morgan and Anita Earls dissented from the court’s ruling claiming that it was a misapplication of the law and that the court should have denied the petition. The order noted that the majority opinion was based on applicable precedent, which allows rehearings in cases when a court overlooks or misapprehends fact or law. However, Morgan and Earls argued that “this is not such a case.” 

The court will hear both cases on March 14th. Until then, North Carolina’s constitutionality of voter ID laws and redistricting map remain in limbo. The decision to rehear the cases could provide new insight into the court’s future rulings on these issues moving forward. 

Regardless of their opinion on the matter, one thing is sure: the people of North Carolina depend on their judicial system to ensure that voting rights remain intact. It is up to the court to determine the fate of these two cases and decide whether or not they will be an important factor in future discussions regarding voting and voter ID laws.

REFERENCES:

North Carolina Supreme Court Orders Re-examination of Redistricting and Voter ID Cases

The post North Carolina Supreme Court Orders Re-examination of Redistricting and Voter ID Cases first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Baker Donelson Expands Health Law Practice, Establishes North Carolina Presence

Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz has announced the expansion of its geographic reach to North Carolina with the addition of six health care attorneys. Leading health law attorneys Kenneth L. Burgess and Matthew W. Wolfe will join the firm as shareholders and also lead the firm’s office in Research Triangle.

Along with Burgess and Wolfe, Matt Fisher and Iain Stauffer will join the firm as of counsel, and Mysty Blagg and E. Bahati Mutisya will join the firm as associates. Burgess, Fisher, Stauffer, and Blagg, join the firm from Poyner Spruill LLP, a leading North Carolina law firm. Wolfe and Mutisya join from Parker Poe Adams and Bernstein LLP, a leading regional law firm with eight offices in the United States and more than 230 attorneys.

Wolfe’s practice focuses on counseling clients on issues concerning health law and policy. He assists clients in resolving disputes with state and federal government entities and helps them in administrative, state, and federal litigation. He deals with a wide range of issues concerning health law including False Claims Act actions, Medicare and Medicaid program integrity actions, denials, terminations, prepayment reviews, post-payment reviews, procurement matters, and payment suspensions. Presently, he also serves as the vice-chair of Behavioral Health Practice Group of the American Health Lawyers Association.

Burgess brings with him more than 35 years of health law experience and counsels health care clients on a broad range of regulatory, compliance, litigation, and operations issues. He also assists clients with Certificate of Need, appeals of quality-of-care issues, Medicare/ Medicaid enrolment and licensure issues, and transactional matters. He helps providers with legal issues arising in hospitals, assisted living communities, home health, hospice, skilled nursing facilities, and other related health care places. He has been recognized as a leading health law practitioner by leading law publications.

Fisher focuses his practice on HIPAA compliance, information security matters, privacy, Certificate of Need, and licensure and certification issues. He assists clients in litigation pertaining to these issues and routinely appears before the Office of Administrative Hearings, state courts, and federal courts. He also helps clients in civil litigation matters, defends them in business, construction, commercial, and medical malpractice claims, and also counsels clients on facility and practice acquisitions.

Stauffer represents health care providers in complex civil matters concerning health care reimbursement, Medicare and Medicaid compliance and enrolment, enforcement actions, licensing, and responses to government investigations. He also assists individual practitioners with representation in licensing board matters. He has also worked in the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office for over a decade.

Commenting on his latest role, Wolfe said, “Joining a firm of Baker Donelson’s reputation will be a substantial benefit to my clients. This move gives them access to a deep bench of talented attorneys who are nationally recognized leaders in health care law and offer significant experience in litigation, regulatory, and transactional issues. I’m excited to be offering my clients an expanded platform with broader services and increased resources and to be building Baker Donelson’s presence in North Carolina.”

Speaking about his new role, Burgess said, “Joining Baker Donelson alongside Matt and the broader team is truly exciting. I was drawn to the Firm’s offerings specifically in health care and across numerous other practice areas. Baker Donelson brings the benefits of a law firm that can be a full-service partner for all my clients’ legal needs. Providing that level of service to my clients is important to me, and Baker Donelson fully shares that commitment to exceptional service.”

Richard G. Cowart, Chair of Baker Donelson’s Health Law/Government Relations & Public Policy Department, noted, “Given the strategic importance of the Research Triangle in the health care industry, having a presence in North Carolina is a tremendous asset to our health law practice. Matt and Ken have stellar reputations, and they and their team bring a tremendous amount of experience in a wide range of regulatory issues that health care providers face. We’re exceptionally proud to welcome a group of this caliber to our national health practice.”

Timothy M. Lupinacci, Chair and CEO of Baker Donelson, said, “Matt, Ken, and their team are an outstanding group of attorneys who meld well with our existing health care practice, which is among the leading practices in the country and one of our Firm’s designated Centers of Excellence. Serving Baker Donelson clients with North Carolina operations and following the trajectory of key industries is critically important. These additions further strengthen our presence in North Carolina along with the many lawyers we have admitted to practice in the state. We have every expectation that we will continue to build on that.”

The post Baker Donelson Expands Health Law Practice, Establishes North Carolina Presence first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The North Carolina legislature voted earlier this year to prohibit squatted trucks in the state. Well, the bell has finally tolled and the squatted trucks will no longer be welcome as of Dec. 1. In addition, if their drivers break the law three times within a year, they will have their license suspended – evidently, they mean business.

House Bill 692 passed the House of Representatives and was sent to the Senate, but a modified version was passed and signed into law by Governor Roy Cooper on Aug. 30. As of now, a vehicle with suspension modifications that simultaneously raise the front and lower the rear fenders of any vehicle-the signature look of the squatted truck-will be illegal.

As of today, the North Carolina vehicle code prohibits lifting or lowering a passenger vehicle by more than six inches. Nevertheless, the ratified legislation (available for download here) eliminates that specification and instead sets a limit of no more than four inches between the front and rear fenders to prevent squatting trucks.

Please note that this only applies to vehicles with modified “suspension, chassis, or frame,” so your 2000 Honda Insight and vintage Cadillac DeVille are safe.

Although the text of the bill changed between then and when it was passed, the law still gets rid of the paragraph that prohibits owners from raising or lowering their vehicles beyond the current six-inch limit. Having removed that text, it seems that car owners are now free to raise and lower their vehicles limitlessly, so long as no other violations are committed, such as exceeding 13 feet.

Those who are repeat offenders will have their licenses suspended automatically.

Aside from making squatting illegal, the law makes it mandatory for the courts to revoke a driver’s license from anyone who is convicted three or more times within a 12-month period. Offending drivers will have their licenses suspended for at least one year.

Divisiveness was a major part of the legislation. The issue sparked a battle between opposing petitions, with more than 70,000 people pledging to make the modifications illegal and another 20,000 opposing it. 

Squatted trucks were long overdue for a ban, despite other dangerous modifications that should be restricted. In the name of clout, egregiously parked trucks pose a risk to pedestrians and motorists by obscuring their view of the road. It remains to be seen whether drivers will adapt to the law by modifying their fender arches.

The post North Carolina’s Legislature Approves Ban on Lifted Fender Modifications first appeared on JDJournal Blog.