State government lawyers are asking the North Carolina Supreme Court to reject an appeal in a recent case upholding government restrictions on Sunday hunting.
Plaintiff Tim Oates is asking the state’s high court to overturn a unanimous April 16 decision from the state Court of Appeals. Appellate judges agreed that the laws governing Sunday hunting comply with the North Carolina Constitution.
“In 2018, North Carolinians voted to ratify an amendment to the State’s constitution that preserves the right to hunt and fish,” lawyers led by North Carolina Solicitor General Nick Brod wrote Thursday. “Like any constitutional right, however, this right is not absolute. To the contrary, the right is expressly ‘subject … to laws enacted by the General Assembly.’”
“Plaintiff Tim Oates brought this lawsuit alleging that the State’s restrictions on Sunday hunting violate the right to hunt and fish,” the court filing continued. “The restrictions that Oates challenges here — codified in section 103-2 of the General Statutes — allow hunting on Sundays but place certain limits on what, where, and when individuals may hunt on that day. In doing so, section 103-2 reflects a balance that the General Assembly has struck between the competing interests of hunters and nonhunters — as well as current hunters and future hunters—on a day when the State’s lands and resources are in high demand.”
“The Court of Appeals below unanimously held that section 103-2’s restrictions on Sunday hunting are facially constitutional,” state lawyers wrote. “As the Court of Appeals correctly explained, the text of the right-to-hunt-and-fish amendment expressly reserves ‘power to the General Assembly.’ And as the court further emphasized, the same General Assembly introduced — within the span of just two months — both the most recent amendments to the Sunday hunting restrictions in section 103-2 and the proposed constitutional right to hunt and fish.”
“This text and history show that the right to hunt and fish was originally understood by its framers to permit the very restrictions on Sunday hunting that Oates challenges here,” state government lawyers argued.
“Oates now purports to appeal the decision below, claiming that he has an appeal of right based on a substantial constitutional question. In multiple ways, however, Oates’s notice of appeal does not satisfy Appellate Rule 14’s requirements for a notice of this kind. And in any event, Oates has failed to show that the constitutional issues raised in his appeal are substantial,” the court filing continued.
North Carolina had banned all use of firearms for hunting on Sundays until 2017, when then-Gov. Roy Cooper signed House Bill 559 into law. The new law opened up some Sunday hunting with new restrictions.
North Carolina voters approved a state constitutional amendment the following year supporting “the right of the people to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife.” The provision now makes up Article I, Section 38 of the North Carolina Constitution.
Oates filed suit in September 2020. He claimed “(1) that N.C.G.S. § 103- 2(a2), which prohibits Sunday waterfowl hunting, impermissibly interferes with the fundamental rights of hunting and pursuit of happiness guaranteed by the North Carolina Constitution; (2) that N.C.G.S. § 103-2(a1), which limits hunting hours on Sunday, is likewise unconstitutional; and (3) that all restrictions on Sunday hunting are not allowed under the federal Establishment Clause,” according to the Appeals Court’s April opinion.
In February 2024, a three-judge Superior Court panel granted summary judgment in favor of the state, Republican legislative leaders, and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
“In addressing Count 1, plaintiff’s challenge to the restriction on migratory bird hunting on Sundays, the panel applied rational basis review, finding that plaintiff could not meet his burden on the facial challenge ‘because the statute is reasonably and rationally related to the legitimate government interest contemplated in the text of the amendment under which Plaintiff brings his challenge,’” Judge John Arrowood wrote for the Appeals Court.
“The court noted that strict scrutiny was ‘chiefly inappropriate,’ given that the Article contained ‘express language that limits the right to hunt by vesting in the State a right and a duty to manage wildlife,’” Arrowood continued. “The panel further noted that there were additional State obligations to protect the lands and waters to the benefit of both hunters and non-hunters, and discussed ‘several conceivable reasons to restrict hunting’ on Sundays: protecting migratory birds; enabling non-hunters to enjoy scenic game lands without disturbance; and allowing an extended hunting season through compensatory hunting days.”
Arrowood continued his review of the original three-judge panel’s ruling. “In addressing Count 2, plaintiff’s contention that any and all restrictions on hunting on public lands are unconstitutional, the panel noted its analysis of Count 1 and cited Article XIV of the North Carolina Constitution: ‘the State is required “to conserve and protect its lands and waters for the benefit of all its citizenry ….”’ The court further noted that the Equal Protection Clause does not apply to different types of land.”
“Regarding Count 3, plaintiff’s challenge to the ban on hunting on public or private land between 9:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. on Sundays, the panel found that the General Assembly had authority to exercise the police power of the State to protect the people’s welfare, and that an ordinance which ‘may require the cessation of secular pursuits on Sunday during the hours in which churchgoing people usually attend religious services, will not be held unconstitutional, if otherwise reasonable and valid,’” Arrowood wrote. “The panel determined that this law was ‘a valid exercise of the State’s police power,’ given the benefit to non-hunters, who will have a guaranteed window of time during which they will not be disturbed by hunting, and the extended hunting season in North Carolina.”
Appellate judges rejected Oates’ argument that the trial court should have applied to stricter standard when judging the Sunday hunting law.
“Plaintiff argues that the right to hunt is a fundamental right, and thus deserving of strict scrutiny,” Arrowood wrote. “However, while the right to hunt has been made explicit in our Constitution, this does not mean that it is a fundamental right for several reasons, chief among them being the reservation of power to the General Assembly contained within the constitutional amendment.”
The constitutional amendment enshrining North Carolinians’ right to hunt and fish spells out the General Assembly’s authority to set limits on the right. Arrowood described this language as a “grant of power” written into the amendment. “Thus, although the right to hunt was written into our Constitution, the amendment has all the hallmarks that indicate laws passed under the amendment deserve only rational basis review,” Arrowood explained.
Oates “contends that the Sunday hunting laws ‘have nothing to do with managing wildlife and everything to do with managing people,’” the Appeals Court opinion continued. “We disagree with plaintiff’s position for a number of reasons: the historical record surrounding the Sunday hunting laws and the enactment of this amendment indicate that these were decided in tandem, and the state Constitution already demands that state land be used for the benefit of all.”
Lawmakers addressed the changes in Sunday hunting and the state constitutional amendment in the same legislative session, Arrowood wrote. “It is clear from the historical record, then, that our legislature saw no conflict between the amendment and what was left of the Sunday hunting laws, as they chose to pass the amendment and keep the laws in a limited form, rather than entirely discard Sunday hunting laws.”
Judges Fred Gore and Tom Murry joined Arrowood’s decision.
The post State asks top NC court to reject appeal in Sunday hunting case first appeared on Carolina Journal.