Justice Allison Riggs is one of two Democrats on the North Carolina Supreme Court and is running for reelection this November. Prior to serving on the Supreme Court, Justice Riggs served on the North Carolina Court of Appeals and worked as a civil rights attorney for the Southern Coalition for Social Justice. (There’s a much more in-depth four-part interview with Riggs on FlipNC.)
Justice Riggs is the youngest woman to have served on the state Supreme Court, and has been endorsed by Former Attorney General Eric Holder, Pro-Choice NC, and the Sierra Club. This is an unedited interview.
North Carolina has long been and remains a purple state, but the General Assembly appears eager to enact policies that tip the scales in favor of Republicans. What does the NC Constitution say about ensuring the right to vote is not unduly hindered for partisan reasons?
In the last couple of years, the contrast of the choice that voters have when it comes to our courts has been crystallized. North Carolinians have the choice to elect judges who believe in enforcing constitutional protections for voting, or they can choose to elect judges who are willing to rubber-stamp efforts to undermine our democracy. I spent my entire career before joining the bench as a voting rights attorney, fighting to enforce constitutional protections for the right to vote. I value a multiracial, inclusive democracy, and I know that we need a judiciary willing to enforce the state constitution, without fear or favor.
The Dobbs decision upended reproductive choices for women and families, especially in conservative parts of the country. Now, Republicans at the national level increasingly contend that access to abortion should be decided by states. North Carolina’s General Assembly has limited access to abortion since the Dobbs ruling, and some members have expressed interest in further restrictions. What role do NC courts play in determining if such restrictions are permissible under the NC Constitution?
In a post-Dobbs world, the North Carolina Supreme Court will very likely have the final say on determining whether in-state abortion restrictions are constitutional or not under our state constitution. Mark Robinson and other extreme Republicans are pushing for a ban on abortion, and the North Carolina Supreme Court could be the last stop before such a ban goes into effect.
Across the country but even more so in the South, we have seen state supreme courts uphold bans on healthcare not only for abortion, but miscarriage and IVF. In the last year, we have seen the Arizona Supreme Court uphold a near-total ban on abortion, the Florida Supreme Court uphold a 6 week ban on abortion, the Alabama Supreme Court rule that life begins at conception (effectively halting IVF treatments in that state), and the Texas Supreme Court greenlight the criminalization of miscarriage treatment.
Voters should know that state appellate courts play a critical role in determining what kinds of healthcare they have access to, including maternal healthcare. When access to healthcare is limited, we know that low-income women, Black women and rural women will be disproportionately affected and harmed.
I am the youngest woman to ever serve on the North Carolina Supreme Court and the only woman of childbearing age serving on any of our appellate courts. I have only been married for three years – my husband and I met a bit later in life, so I know our ability to grow our family may depend on the healthcare I can access, including IVF treatment. I understand as a directly-impacted person how to most accurately assess the constitutional burden that healthcare-related laws place on women and families.
If justices are obligated to impartially decide cases, why does it matter if people vote for a Democratic versus Republican candidate?
When voting for judges and justices, I would encourage voters to look not only at the letters next to our names, but our values and track records. Judges and Justices bring their life experience and values to the bench and that shapes how they approach cases and how they treat people in the courtroom.
My experience as a civil rights attorney has brought me face-to-face with some of the weaknesses in our legal system. My clients did not always get a fair shake in a court of law, and implicit bias continues to have too much affect on the ability of North Carolinians to obtain justice in a court of law. In contrast, my opponent criticized, in written opinion, Chief Justice Cheri Beasley for taking action to address systemic discrimination in our judiciary, and he disclaimed the presence of any racial bias in the criminal justice system.
I value reproductive freedom and the ability of all people to make their own private healthcare decisions. In contrast, my opponent signed onto an opinion, since withdrawn, stating that life begins at conception – the same extreme legal position that left women in Alabama without access to fertility treatment. It is not that voters should pick me because I am a Democrat. They should pick me because of my values and my track record, particularly when compared to my opponent.
What can you share about your judicial philosophy to help readers understand how you might approach important issues that come before the court?
I do not subscribe to a rigid, one-size-fits-all “judicial philosophy” that explains how I’m going to approach cases. “Judicial philosophy” has too often become a code word for political ideology or a signal of how a judge will vote. People who come before our courts deserve to have their cases heard with a full appreciation of those cases’ complexity and for the need for nuance. If the only thing that mattered in a judge was how strictly they would conform to a political philosophy, we could get rid of human judges and replace them with AI originalist bots. I think the people of North Carolina deserve and want critical thinkers hearing cases that affect their everyday lives.
Rejecting rigid ideology does not mean that my decisions are not reasoned or predictable. The values that inform me are integrity, transparency, consistency and empathy, and I seek to make our justice system more transparent and accessible. I embrace intellectual honesty in my judicial writing – I will not hide behind a judicial philosophy. I will explain my application of the law so that every North Carolinian can understand it and the law will be demystified.
Indeed, I approach every case with a disciplined judicial methodology. As an appellate judge, I’m tasked with reviewing the decisions of lower courts. I think it is important that the first thing I read in any case is the decision below. That helps keep me in my lane as a judge and helps me to block out external influences. I read the facts of each case, the applicable law, and I apply the law to the facts. I take seriously my responsibility to uphold both our state and federal constitutions.
My opponent is an avowed originalist, just like Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Thomas’s application of an originalist judicial philosophy led him to not only overrule Roe v. Wade, it also led him to suggest that the United States Supreme Court should revisit decisions protecting against the criminalization of same-sex relationships and decisions guaranteeing access to contraception and marriage equality.
(We ask every candidate this question) We recently learned that Crocs come in a shocking array of designs. If you could design a pair of Crocs for yourself, what would they look like?
I would prefer to be able to personalize my Crocs, like my nieces and nephews do with the little stick-on charms. I’d get a Diet Mountain Dew can (just like Gov. Walz!), a dog, a book, a plant, and all the things I love.