As part of its bicentennial celebration, the North Carolina Supreme Court will be presiding in the town of Halifax on October 1.   

The Supreme Court has held sessions of court outside of the city of Raleigh only seven times since August 1861.

Under state law, the Supreme Court can meet in only two other cities outside of Raleigh — Edenton and Morganton.

Per Chief Justice Mark Martin’s request to the General Assembly, the Supreme Court is allowing the justices to convene in cities across the state during the Court’s 2018-2020 bicentennial celebration.   

“The Supreme Court is celebrating its 200th anniversary next year in 2019, and as part of the celebration we’re bringing the court to the people,” said Martin.

The two sessions will be held in the superior courtroom located at the courthouse complex on Ferrell Lane in Halifax.

Due to limited seating, these sessions of court are ticketed events.

At 4:15 p.m. on September 30 those with tickets may have their photos taken with the justices.

Tickets may be reserved at this link.

The Docket

Arguments before the court will be held at 9:30 a.m. and 11 a.m.

At 9:30 a.m. the court will hear arguments in Pachas v North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services.

Carlos Pachas was a Medicaid recipient. In 2016, he challenged the deductible applied to his Medicaid coverage. After losing throughout the administrative process, Pachas ultimately prevailed on judicial review in the trial court. The court held that the applicable Medicaid statute required the State to use the federal poverty level for a family, not an individual, to calculate Pachas's income limit.

In the 11 a.m. case the court will hear State v Kurt Deion Frederick.

On June 8 of 2016 a Wake County jury found Frederick guilty of trafficking heroin, maintaining a dwelling for keeping or selling heroin and possession with intent to sell or deliver Schedule 1.

Prior to trial, the defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search of his residence.

The appeal is based on an order denying his motion to suppress because he contends the search warrant was improperly issued because it lacked probable cause.

Court Categories: Supreme Court