Court Cases

Eric James was convicted under North Carolina’s felon-in-possession statute, which categorically strips anyone with a felony conviction of their right to own or possess a firearm, regardless of how minor or nonviolent the underlying offense was, how long ago it happened, or whether the person poses any danger today. Ducker challenged his conviction, arguing that applying this lifetime ban to him violated both the Second Amendment and the North Carolina Constitution. The Court of Appeals rejected his challenge without conducting an individualized analysis, concluding that all people with felony convictions are automatically excluded from Second Amendment protection. The ACLU of NC and the Cato Institute filed a joint amicus brief urging the North Carolina Supreme Court to reverse that ruling. People do not lose their constitutional rights just because they have been convicted of a felony. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Bruen (2022) and Rahimi (2024) require courts to evaluate gun restrictions like the felon-in-possession statute on a case-by-case basis. North Carolina’s statute sweeps far too broadly, stripping people of their constitutional rights for offenses as minor as digging up a Venus flytrap or changing the mileage on a vehicle’s odometer. Violent crimes account for only 16.4% of all felony charges statewide, yet this statute applies to individuals convicted of nonviolent crimes in the same way as if they were convicted of first degree murder. The impact of the law falls particularly hard on rural and Black North Carolinians, who are disproportionately impacted by both felony convictions and the loss of firearm rights. Instead of keeping people safe, the law furthers the cycle of mass incarceration by sending people who have completed their sentences back to prison solely for exercising a constitutional right. We urge the Court to hold that the felon-in-possession statute cannot be constitutionally applied to people who pose no danger and to remand for an individualized constitutional review of Ducker’s conviction.

On December 12, 2025, the ACLU of North Carolina and the Duke Children’s Law Clinic filed a systemic state complaint with the Department of Public Instruction (DPI), alleging that Durham Public Schools denied legally required education services to students with disabilities detained at the Durham County Youth Home. Youth homes house young people who are detained while their cases move through the juvenile legal system. Many of the youth in these facilities have identified disabilities requiring special education services. The complaint alleges that Durham Public Schools failed to provide students with disabilities with the educational support and services to which they are legally entitled. Specifically, it raises concerns that beginning in February 2025, the Youth Home implemented a near-total suspension of educational services, including special education services, during a facility-wide lockdown. Students were reportedly confined to their cells between 22 and 24 hours per day and received education services for no more than 30 minutes at a time. Even after the lockdown was lifted, students reportedly continued to receive only minimal instruction. In January 2026, DPI declined to investigate the complaint, stating that it contained “insufficient facts to support the alleged violation.” The ACLU of North Carolina and the Children’s Law Clinic refiled the complaint in February 2026 with additional evidence. On March 12, DPI announced that it will open an investigation into whether Durham Public Schools complied with federal and state laws governing special education services for students detained at the Youth Home. The agency has indicated that it expects to complete its investigation and issue a final report by April 25, 2026. If violations are found, DPI may require Durham Public Schools to take corrective action to bring the facility into compliance with special education law.

The North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS) is violating the rights of disabled pre-trial detainees in NC jails by failing to ensure timely evaluations and treatment for people who lack capacity to understand the legal proceedings against them, according to a federal lawsuit.

The ACLU of North Carolina and Emancipate NC filed a lawsuit in February 2026 challenging a provision of House Bill 805 that functionally bans gender-affirming care for people who are incarcerated in North Carolina prisons or otherwise in the custody of the Department of Adult Corrections. The lawsuit argues that this ban violates the Eighth Amendment, which requires states to provide medically necessary care to individuals in their custody. Failure to provide this care constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. The lawsuit also includes a class action claim to seek relief for people who are currently incarcerated and may be harmed by the new law.

In 2023, North Carolina legislators enacted a congressional map that diluted the voice and voting power of Black North Carolinians. Plaintiffs sued to enjoin that map. After a trial on the merits, North Carolina engaged in unprecedented mid-decade redistricting to target Black voters in Congressional District 1.

This case challenges the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction for denying Pamela Chambers, an incarcerated woman with diagnosed cataracts, medically necessary care. A cataract is a clouding of the eye that causes visual impairment and eventually blindness, but can be cured with a quick, safe, and inexpensive surgery. In 2022, Chambers was scheduled to have cataracts removed from both of her eyes. However, after the first eye was corrected, her second eye surgery was denied by the prison's medical director due to an apparent policy that only permits one cataract removal surgery per individual during their incarceration, regardless of their medical needs and despite her physician's prescribed treatment. She now suffers from blindness in one eye, double vision, poor depth perception, and an increased risk of falling. The complaint alleges that the NCCIW’s one-eye surgery policy violates the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 27 of the North Carolina Constitution, which require adequate medical care for people in state custody. The complaint also alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act.