RALEIGH, N.C. — The state's highest court ruled Friday that victims of domestic violence in same-sex relationships can obtain emergency restraining orders, nullifying a law that made North Carolina the only state in the nation that lacked such protections.
As written, the state law allows same-sex couples to seek domestic violence protection orders only if they're married or divorced. The N.C. Supreme Court's decision, though, upholds a 2020 appeals court ruling where judges declared that the measure violates the state constitution's guarantee to equal protection under the law.
The court's ruling ends, once and for all, North Carolina's status as the only state in the country that prevented victims of domestic violence in unmarried same-sex relationships from obtaining protective orders.
The case reached the N.C. Supreme Court years after a breakup and domestic dispute between two women listed in court filings only by their initials. The plaintiff, known only as "M.E.", appealed after a Wake County district court ruled she was ineligible for a domestic violence protection order because the couple had never been married and were in a same-sex relationship.
The plaintiff's attorney, Amily McCool, said in a statement Friday that the victory belonged to her client.
"She has courageously and tirelessly fought for almost 4 years to ensure not only that she has the protection she deserves, but that all victims in same-sex dating relationships in N.C. do as well," McCool said. "I have been humbled and honored to advocate on her behalf with the ACLU of NC and others."
Attorneys at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, who represented the unnamed defendant, have not responded to a request for comment as of Friday afternoon.
The justices, however, didn't question whether the state law was constitutional at all. They instead considered several technical arguments from the defendant in her appeal to the court. That included an issue with the paperwork the plaintiff filed during her original domestic violence complaint.
But the court's liberal bloc didn't find those arguments convincing, noting that the plaintiff essentially corrected her mistake within an hour. The resulting decision, Justice Robin Hudson wrote for the four-member majority, left the constitutional ruling "undisturbed."
"For well over a century, North Carolina courts have abided by the foundational principle that administering equity and justice prohibits the elevation of form over substance," Hudson wrote.
A number of high-profile LGBTQ advocacy organizations submitted friend-of-the-court briefs in the case, arguing the state law was unconstitutional.
So did Democratic Attorney General Josh Stein, who on Twitter Friday called the decision "an important win for equality" in North Carolina.
"It doesn't matter who you are — every person in NC deserves to be treated equally under the law & be safe from their abusers," Stein wrote in the tweet.
Conservative Justice Phil Berger Jr. authored the dissent, joined by Justice Tamara Barringer and Chief Justice Paul Newby.
