North Carolina Just Put Bureaucrats on Notice: Agencies Can Enforce the Rules, but Courts Decide What the Law Means

Go Right News Shared by Peter Boykin
American Political Commentator | Citizen Journalist | Activist | Constitutionalist for Liberty

 

North Carolina has quietly made a significant change in the balance of power between citizens, state agencies and the courts.

Governor Josh Stein signed Senate Bill 445, the Regulatory Reform Act of 2026, on August 11. The measure became Session Law 2026-59 after the Senate adopted the conference report 37-0 and the House approved it 84-26. (North Carolina General Assembly)

The law is enormous. It changes statutes involving business regulation, housing, building codes, environmental policy, licensing, public safety, local government and other areas.

But one of its most important provisions is also one of its least flashy.

North Carolina’s Administrative Procedure Act now expressly requires administrative law judges to use traditional de novo review when interpreting state rules and regulations. Reviewing courts may consider an agency’s expertise and interpretation, but they must independently determine what the law means. (North Carolina General Assembly)

That sounds technical.

It is not.

If a licensing board threatens your profession, an environmental regulator restricts your property, a state department interprets a rule against your business or another bureaucracy claims an ambiguous regulation gives it additional power, this rule affects who ultimately decides whether government is correct.

The agency can defend its interpretation.

The agency can explain its expertise.

The agency can present evidence.

But the government does not automatically receive the final word simply because it administers the regulation being challenged.

An independent judge still has to judge.

The Rule Sounds Technical Until the Agency Uses It Against You

Administrative law rarely produces dramatic television.

A legislature passes a statute. An agency writes regulations. The agency begins enforcing those regulations. Years later, a dispute arises over what one sentence actually means.

A permit is denied.

A professional license is threatened.

A business is ordered to spend money complying with an agency interpretation.

A property owner is told that a regulation prohibits something the owner believed was lawful.

Eventually the dispute reaches a court.

At that point, the constitutional question becomes very real.

Should the judge independently determine what the law means?

Or should the judge largely accept the agency’s interpretation because that agency wrote, administers or specializes in the regulation?

North Carolina has moved decisively toward the first answer.

Session Law 2026-59 says an administrative law judge may be informed by an agency’s specialized knowledge concerning facts and technical inferences, but must apply traditional de novo review when interpreting state rules and regulations. The same basic principle now applies when a court reviews certain legal errors in an administrative decision. (North Carolina General Assembly)

In plain English, expertise can inform the judge.

It does not replace the judge.

The North Carolina Supreme Court Had Already Been Moving in This Direction

The General Assembly did not invent this principle from scratch.

North Carolina’s Supreme Court spent much of 2025 clarifying the judiciary’s role in disputes over agency interpretations.

In Savage v. North Carolina Department of Transportation, the court considered whether judges interpreting state statutes must defer to the legal interpretation offered by the agency responsible for administering them.

The court rejected mandatory deference and treated statutory interpretation as a question for independent judicial review. (North Carolina Courts)

Then came Mitchell v. University of North Carolina Board of Governors.

That case asked the related question of whether courts must defer when an agency is interpreting its own rules and regulations.

The North Carolina Supreme Court again said the answer was no. Justice Richard Dietz explained that an agency’s interpretation may be useful, particularly in complicated regulatory programs, but it is not binding on the judiciary. Courts are supposed to exercise independent judgment. (North Carolina Courts)

Senate Bill 445 now reinforces that principle directly in statute.

That matters because constitutional protections are stronger when ordinary citizens, lawyers, judges and government officials can point to clear language rather than relying upon a scattered line of appellate precedent.

Expertise Still Matters, but Expertise Is Not Judicial Power

There is a legitimate argument for giving agencies substantial weight in technical disputes.

Modern government is complicated.

Environmental engineers may understand wastewater treatment better than a generalist judge.

Medical boards understand clinical standards.

Banking regulators understand financial systems.

Utility experts understand the electrical grid.

A judge cannot become an expert in every technical field represented in a courtroom.

North Carolina’s new law does not require judges to pretend otherwise.

The statute specifically allows administrative law judges to be informed by an agency’s demonstrated specialized knowledge concerning facts and inferences within its field. (North Carolina General Assembly)

That is sensible.

There is a difference, however, between telling a judge:

“Here is what twenty years of technical experience tells us about how this system works.”

and telling the judge:

“Here is what the regulation legally means, and you should accept our interpretation because we are the agency.”

The first is expertise.

The second begins to resemble judicial power.

A constitutional system should listen to experts without turning experts into final judges of their own authority.

North Carolina Is Part of a Larger National Shift Away From Mandatory Agency Deference

The controversy resembles a major fight that occurred at the federal level.

For decades, the doctrine associated with Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council sometimes required federal courts to defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes.

In 2024, the United States Supreme Court overruled Chevron in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.

The Court held that the federal Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise independent judgment when deciding whether a federal agency acted within its statutory authority. Ambiguity alone does not require a court to accept the agency’s interpretation. (Supreme Court)

North Carolina’s legal history is not identical to the federal Chevron story.

Savage and Mitchell relied on North Carolina law, state precedent and the judiciary’s role under the state’s own constitutional structure.

That distinction matters.

This is not simply Raleigh copying Washington.

North Carolina is defining the relationship among its own branches of government.

Government Should Not Become Its Own Final Referee

Administrative agencies occupy a powerful position in modern government.

An agency may help draft regulations.

It administers those regulations.

It investigates violations.

It may initiate enforcement action.

It develops expertise in the field.

And when a regulation is ambiguous, the agency often develops the first interpretation of what that language means.

There are practical reasons for that structure.

There is also a danger.

If the agency’s legal interpretation automatically receives controlling judicial deference, the same institution effectively participates in making the rule, interpreting the rule and enforcing the rule against the citizen.

Independent judicial review creates separation between those functions.

That does not guarantee the citizen wins.

The court may independently examine the statute and conclude the agency was exactly right.

That is fine.

The constitutional protection is not that government must lose.

The protection is that government has to persuade an independent decision-maker.

The Same Law Also Expands Property Rights for Accessory Dwelling Units

Senate Bill 445 goes far beyond administrative law.

One of its most significant housing provisions restricts how certain local governments may regulate accessory dwelling units, often called granny flats, in-law suites, garage apartments or backyard cottages.

Beginning with qualifying permit applications on January 15, 2027, cities with populations of at least 50,000 outside North Carolina’s defined coastal area must allow at least one qualifying accessory dwelling unit on lots containing single-family detached homes in areas where those homes are otherwise permitted. (North Carolina General Assembly)

The statute places substantial limits on local restrictions.

Affected local governments cannot require additional minimum parking, force an ADU into conditional zoning, prohibit separate long-term rentals of the main residence and ADU, charge unusually high permitting fees or set the maximum allowable size below 800 square feet. The law still allows some regulation involving placement, setbacks, size relationships and other lawful development requirements. (North Carolina General Assembly)

Local governments must adopt implementing regulations by July 1, 2027. (North Carolina General Assembly)

There is a strong property-rights argument behind those reforms.

If someone owns a home and wants to build a modest dwelling for an elderly parent, adult child or renter, government should have a meaningful reason before saying no.

ADUs can increase housing supply without requiring every new residence to come from another enormous subdivision.

They can help families care for relatives.

They can provide homeowners with additional income.

But there is another legitimate principle involved.

Local control.

Deregulation Can Increase Freedom While Also Centralizing Power

This is where constitutional conservatives should resist easy slogans.

A state government can reduce regulation while simultaneously concentrating more authority in Raleigh.

Those things are not mutually exclusive.

Suppose a city makes it almost impossible for homeowners to construct modest accessory dwellings.

The state can override those restrictions and expand property rights.

For the homeowner, that may represent more freedom.

At the same time, the state has taken some zoning authority away from locally elected officials.

Both facts can be true.

Local government is valuable because officials closest to citizens can often respond more directly to community needs.

But local control is not an unlimited principle.

A municipality cannot violate constitutional rights merely because its city council voted for the restriction.

Property rights impose limits too.

The challenge is finding the boundary between reasonable land-use regulation and government unnecessarily controlling what people may do with their own property.

That same tension is now exploding around a very different kind of development across the Piedmont.

Alamance County Has Now Approved a One-Year Data Center Moratorium

The data center section of this story has changed significantly since the original version was drafted.

Alamance County commissioners were originally considering a six-month moratorium.

After a lengthy August 17 public hearing involving more than three dozen speakers, the commissioners unanimously approved a one-year moratorium instead. The purpose is to give county officials time to study the rapidly developing industry and consider formal rules for future data center projects. (alamancenews.com)

That is a meaningful local development.

Artificial intelligence requires physical infrastructure.

Models may feel like software living somewhere in “the cloud,” but the cloud requires enormous buildings filled with servers.

Those buildings require land.

They require electricity.

They may require substantial transmission infrastructure.

Cooling can create significant water or energy demands depending on the design.

The facilities can produce considerable tax revenue and private investment while also creating legitimate concerns for neighbors, utilities and local governments.

Alamance County now has a year to decide how it wants to handle those competing interests.

Greensboro Has Also Put Large Data Centers on Pause

Greensboro has now taken similar action.

On August 18, the City Council voted 8-0, with one recusal, to establish a 180-day moratorium on new data centers and similar facilities requiring more than 10 megawatts of electrical power.

The moratorium runs through February 14, 2027. Existing projects that were already permitted or under construction are not affected. City leaders say the pause will allow time for expert review, public input and development of new land-use standards. (Greensboro NC)

That is longer than the 120-day pause originally contemplated.

Again, the word “temporary” matters.

A pause can be legitimate when local codes were written before a new industry emerged and government genuinely needs time to establish predictable rules.

A moratorium becomes more concerning when temporary delays simply become repeated extensions designed to stop lawful development without openly adopting a prohibition.

Property owners and businesses deserve predictable rules too.

Yadkin County Shows How Quickly the AI Infrastructure Race Is Moving

Yadkin County provides another example.

County commissioners have approved a two-year data center moratorium, yet AI infrastructure company WhiteFiber is simultaneously planning to acquire two industrial properties totaling roughly 120 acres for $60 million.

The company says the proposed NC-2 and NC-3 campuses could initially provide about 60 megawatts of capacity and potentially reach approximately 200 megawatts over time.

How the county moratorium affects those plans remains uncertain. (WUNC)

That is exactly why North Carolina needs clear rules.

Technology investment can move faster than zoning codes.

Government needs enough time to understand major infrastructure projects.

Businesses also need enough certainty to know whether hundreds of millions of dollars can be invested without government changing the rules halfway through development.

Data Centers Make the Property Rights Question Much Harder

A backyard cottage and a 200-megawatt data center are obviously very different forms of land use.

But the underlying constitutional tensions overlap.

Who controls private property?

How much authority belongs to the owner?

When can local government regulate external impacts?

When should Raleigh override local restrictions?

Who pays for infrastructure created by private development?

Those questions cannot be answered simply by shouting “property rights” or “local control.”

A data center may bring enormous capital investment.

It may increase the tax base.

It may help build America’s AI infrastructure.

It may create construction jobs and permanent technical employment.

Those are legitimate benefits.

But citizens can also reasonably ask how much electricity the facility will consume, whether new transmission lines will be required, who pays for grid upgrades, how much water will be used, how much noise the facility generates and what happens to surrounding property.

Those are not anti-business questions.

They are due-diligence questions.

A genuinely good project should become easier to defend when those answers are public.

Temporary Moratoriums Need an Expiration Date That Actually Means Something

Local governments should use these pauses productively.

Study electricity demand.

Study water requirements.

Study noise.

Study emergency services.

Study setbacks.

Study tax revenue.

Study permanent employment.

Study the financial responsibility for infrastructure.

Listen to residents.

Listen to utilities.

Listen to property owners.

Listen to developers.

Then write the rules.

The goal should be a predictable regulatory system in which everyone knows the standards before an application is filed.

A one-year pause should not become two years because officials did not finish the work.

A 180-day moratorium should not become an indefinite ban through repeated renewals.

Government should not use uncertainty as a substitute for making difficult decisions.

Regulatory certainty is part of economic liberty.

 

Senate Bill 445 Is Much Bigger Than Any One Reform

The Regulatory Reform Act is an omnibus law.

The General Assembly’s official record shows that it amends an enormous range of statutes involving business, natural resources, public safety, professional licensing, education, development regulation and other areas. (North Carolina General Assembly)

That creates an important warning.

A bill labeled “regulatory reform” is not automatically good merely because conservatives generally favor deregulation.

Every section should be examined independently.

Does it eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy?

Does it increase competition?

Does it strengthen property rights?

Does it make government more accountable?

Does it clarify authority?

Or does it merely move government power from one institution to another?

The correct standard is not whether government regulation went up or down.

The standard should be whether individual liberty and constitutional accountability improved.

 

What We Know and What Is Still Developing

We know Governor Stein signed Senate Bill 445 on August 11 and that it became Session Law 2026-59. The Senate conference report passed 37-0 and the House adopted it 84-26. (North Carolina General Assembly)

We know the law expressly requires independent de novo interpretation of state rules and regulations while still allowing judges to consider genuine agency expertise. (North Carolina General Assembly)

We know the change reinforces the direction already established by the North Carolina Supreme Court in Savage and Mitchell. (North Carolina Courts)

We know the law also substantially limits some local restrictions on accessory dwelling units in qualifying cities beginning in 2027. (North Carolina General Assembly)

And we know the Piedmont’s data center debate is moving quickly. Alamance County has adopted a one-year moratorium, Greensboro has approved a 180-day pause on large facilities, and Yadkin County has approved a two-year moratorium while WhiteFiber pursues two major sites. (alamancenews.com)

What remains developing is how aggressively courts use the newly codified anti-deference language, whether ADU reforms meaningfully increase housing construction and what permanent data center regulations local governments adopt before their moratoriums expire.

But one principle is already clearer.

A government agency may possess expertise and enforcement authority without possessing the final judicial authority to define the limits of its own power.

Bureaucrats Can Enforce the Law, but They Should Never Be the Final Judge of Their Own Power

The Go Right with Peter Boykin Perspective

This is one of those stories where the headline sounds technical until government comes knocking on your door.

“De novo review of administrative regulations” is not exactly a phrase you are going to see printed across campaign hats.

But translate it into ordinary life.

Suppose you own a business.

A state agency regulates your industry.

The agency has a rule that was written ten years ago.

The rule is vague.

For years, you operated under one understanding of what that rule meant.

Then somebody inside the agency decides the language means something different.

Maybe the new interpretation requires you to spend $100,000.

Maybe your permit is denied.

Maybe your professional license is threatened.

Maybe you are told you cannot use your property the way you have been using it.

Maybe the regulation suddenly reaches conduct nobody thought it covered when it was written.

You challenge the agency and go before a court.

At that moment, what do you want?

I want an independent judge.

I do not want the government telling me:

“We wrote the rule, we interpret the rule, we enforce the rule, and the judge should defer to us because we are the experts.”

That is too much power concentrated in one place.

It does not mean the agency is evil.

It does not mean the bureaucrat is corrupt.

It does not mean the agency is wrong.

The agency may be completely right.

Then prove it.

Explain the language.

Explain the history.

Explain the technical problem.

Explain why your interpretation makes sense.

Persuade the judge.

What government should not receive is a built-in advantage that effectively says ambiguity belongs to the bureaucracy.

That is why I like the principle North Carolina is reinforcing.

The agency can enforce the law.

The agency can use its expertise.

The agency can explain what it thinks the regulation means.

But the court independently decides what the law actually means.

That is separation of powers.

And separation of powers is not some eighteenth-century decoration sitting behind glass in a museum.

It exists because government power tends to grow.

One institution writes a rule.

Then it interprets the rule.

Then it enforces the rule.

Then, over time, its interpretation becomes accepted practice.

Then the accepted practice starts being treated as though it were law.

Eventually citizens can find themselves governed by requirements no elected legislature ever clearly enacted.

That is how administrative power expands without dramatic headlines.

Nobody announces:

“Today the bureaucracy gained another piece of legislative and judicial authority.”

It happens one interpretation at a time.

That is why independent courts matter.

Now, I want to be fair to agencies.

Expertise is real.

If I am arguing about whether a chemical contaminant presents a particular environmental risk, I want scientists involved.

If the case involves an electrical grid, bring in engineers.

If it involves medical standards, bring in physicians.

If it involves financial markets, bring in people who understand those systems.

Government cannot function if judges pretend every complicated technical question can be answered from a law book alone.

But expertise should help explain facts.

It should not decide constitutional authority.

That is the distinction.

The expert tells the court how the machine works.

The judge decides what the law allows government to do with the machine.

The expert explains the environmental consequences.

The judge decides whether the statute actually gives the agency the authority it claims.

That is how the system should function.

And I think conservatives need to remember why this principle matters even when a Republican-controlled legislature is the one reinforcing it.

Government power survives elections.

Today’s agency head may be conservative.

Tomorrow’s agency head may be progressive.

The regulation remains.

The authority remains.

The precedent remains.

Every time you create government power because you trust the current people running the institution, imagine the exact same power in the hands of somebody you deeply distrust.

Would you still support it?

That is one of the simplest tests for limited government.

If the answer changes with the party label, you are probably defending politicians rather than principles.

The same consistency test applies to the housing provisions in this law.

I support property rights.

If you own a home and want to build a reasonable backyard cottage for your elderly mother, why should government automatically stop you?

If your adult child needs a place to live, why not?

If you want a small rental unit that helps pay your mortgage, why should a city impose unnecessary barriers?

Accessory dwelling units are not going to solve the entire housing affordability problem.

But they can create more homes on land that already has streets, utilities and neighborhoods.

That can make sense.

At the same time, I believe local government matters.

So I am not going to pretend there is no tension when Raleigh tells municipalities what their zoning codes must allow.

There is a tension.

Property rights pull one direction.

Local control pulls another.

That is what constitutional government looks like in real life.

Principles do not always line up neatly.

Sometimes we actually have to decide where one legitimate authority ends and another begins.

And the data center fight unfolding right here in the Piedmont may be an even better example.

Alamance County has now approved a one-year moratorium on data centers.

Greensboro approved a 180-day pause on large projects.

Yadkin County has approved a two-year moratorium while a company is simultaneously pursuing two sites capable of eventually supporting around 200 megawatts of computing capacity.

Those are serious numbers.

I am not against data centers.

Quite the opposite.

Artificial intelligence is going to require enormous infrastructure.

Somebody is going to build it.

I would rather see America dominate AI infrastructure than watch China dominate it.

I would rather North Carolina attract major private investment than automatically send every project somewhere else.

We have universities.

We have manufacturing.

We have land.

We have energy infrastructure.

We have an opportunity.

But “AI” cannot become another magic phrase like “economic development” where government stops asking questions because somebody promised jobs and tax revenue.

If a company wants to build a massive data center in Alamance County, tell us the numbers.

How many megawatts?

How much water?

How many permanent jobs?

Not construction jobs for eighteen months.

Permanent jobs.

What tax revenue?

What incentives?

What roads need to be improved?

What power infrastructure needs to be constructed?

Who pays for it?

Will ordinary utility customers see higher costs?

What happens to neighboring property?

How loud are the cooling systems?

What backup generators are installed?

What happens if the company abandons the project ten years from now?

Those are not anti-business questions.

If the project is a great deal, those answers should help prove it.

And if government needs twelve months to write reasonable standards for a type of industrial development its zoning code never contemplated, I can understand a temporary moratorium.

But emphasize temporary.

Government should not use a moratorium as a politically convenient way to ban something while refusing to call it a ban.

Alamance County has a year.

Use the year.

Study the issue.

Bring in utility experts.

Bring in engineers.

Bring in developers.

Bring in property owners.

Bring in nearby residents.

Put the infrastructure costs on the table.

Write the rules.

Then reopen the process.

Do not come back eleven months from now and say, “We need another year because we still have questions.”

Government uncertainty has costs too.

A property owner needs predictable law.

A business investing hundreds of millions of dollars needs predictable law.

A neighboring homeowner needs predictable protections.

Everyone benefits when government says clearly:

Here are the rules.

Here is the process.

Here are the limits.

Follow them and you may proceed.

That returns us to the exact same principle behind agency deference.

Clear rules and independent review protect everybody.

They protect citizens from arbitrary enforcement.

They protect good government employees because they know what authority they possess.

They protect businesses from constantly changing interpretations.

They protect property owners from political whim.

They protect courts because judges have an actual legal standard to apply.

And they protect the legitimacy of government itself.

Limited government does not mean no government.

I want government enforcing contracts.

I want government protecting property rights.

I want police enforcing criminal law.

I want courts functioning.

I want necessary infrastructure.

I want legitimate environmental harms addressed.

I want government capable of doing the things the Constitution and laws actually authorize it to do.

What I oppose is government power without a clear boundary.

Show me the authority.

Show me the statute.

Show me the rule.

Show me the evidence.

And if government and citizen disagree over what the law means, give the citizen access to somebody independent enough to tell the government it is wrong.

That is the entire point.

Imagine government saying:

“You may appeal our decision.”

Good.

Who decides?

“We do.”

That is not much of an appeal.

An independent judiciary matters because judges are not supposed to be part of the enforcement team.

They may agree with the agency.

They may disagree.

But they have to exercise their own judgment.

And that is important even though judges themselves are not perfect.

This is not about believing judges are wiser than everybody else.

It is about dividing power.

The legislature should not execute the laws.

The executive should not have the final judicial word on what its authority means.

The judiciary should not simply write whatever policy it thinks is best.

Each branch has a job.

Each branch has power.

Each branch has limits.

That structure is frustrating.

Good.

Government should experience some friction before it can take your license, regulate your property, punish your business or redefine the meaning of its own authority.

The Constitution was not designed for maximum bureaucratic efficiency.

It was designed to make power accountable.

That is why this apparently boring reform matters.

Government agencies can have expertise without having supremacy.

Listen to the experts.

Use their knowledge.

Respect lawful executive authority.

But when government and citizen disagree about the law, the government should have to persuade an independent court just like everybody else.

And apply that same principle everywhere else.

When Raleigh overrides local zoning, ask whether property rights justify it.

When a county freezes data center development, ask whether the temporary pause is actually being used to write clear rules.

When a company requests a massive project, ask who receives the benefits and who carries the costs.

When an agency claims new authority, ask where the authority came from.

Do not automatically side with government.

Do not automatically side with corporations.

Do not automatically side with local officials.

Do not automatically side with Raleigh.

Follow the Constitution.

Follow the law.

Follow the evidence.

That is what it means to be a Constitutionalist for Liberty.

Government should be strong enough to perform its legitimate responsibilities.

It should also remain limited enough that citizens can challenge it and win when government exceeds those responsibilities.

Bureaucrats can enforce the law.

Experts can explain the law.

Agencies can recommend how the law should change.

But when there is a genuine legal dispute, the final interpretation should come from an independent court.

Government does not get the last word merely because government says so.

Power needs separation.

Regulation needs accountability.

Property rights need protection.

Local authority needs boundaries.

And liberty needs an independent referee.

Let’s #GoRight, not blindly right, but constitutionally right.

Short Description

North Carolina’s Regulatory Reform Act of 2026 reinforces a major separation-of-powers principle: state agencies can offer expertise and enforce lawful regulations, but courts must independently determine what those regulations mean. The same law expands accessory dwelling unit rights in larger noncoastal cities, while Alamance County, Greensboro and Yadkin County are simultaneously imposing temporary data center moratoriums as the Piedmont confronts new questions about property rights, infrastructure and local control.

Hashtags

#GoRight #GoRightNews #PeterBoykin #ConstitutionalistForLiberty #NorthCarolina #NCPolitics #JoshStein #SB445 #RegulatoryReform #LimitedGovernment #SeparationOfPowers #JudicialReview #AdministrativeState #PropertyRights #Housing #ADU #LocalControl #AlamanceCounty #Greensboro #YadkinCounty #DataCenters #ArtificialIntelligence #Constitution #GovernmentAccountability

Sources

North Carolina General Assembly, Senate Bill 445 / Session Law 2026-59
Official legislative history, final votes, enactment and bill documents for the Regulatory Reform Act of 2026. (North Carolina General Assembly)
North Carolina General Assembly SB 445

North Carolina General Assembly, Session Law 2026-59
Official enacted text, including de novo review of agency regulations and accessory dwelling unit provisions. (North Carolina General Assembly)
Read Session Law 2026-59

North Carolina Judicial Branch, Savage v. North Carolina Department of Transportation
Official North Carolina Supreme Court case concerning judicial deference to state agency statutory interpretations. (North Carolina Courts)
Savage v. N.C. Department of Transportation

North Carolina Judicial Branch, Mitchell v. University of North Carolina Board of Governors
Official North Carolina Supreme Court case concerning deference to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations. (North Carolina Courts)
Mitchell v. UNC Board of Governors

Supreme Court of the United States, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
Federal Supreme Court decision overruling Chevron and requiring federal courts to exercise independent judgment on questions of statutory authority. (Supreme Court)
Read Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

City of Greensboro, Greensboro City Council Approves Data Center Moratorium
Official city announcement confirming the 180-day moratorium on new data centers exceeding 10 megawatts. (Greensboro NC)
Greensboro Data Center Moratorium

Alamance News, Alamance County Commissioners Approve One-Year Data Center Moratorium
Local reporting on the unanimous August 17 decision following the county’s public hearing. (alamancenews.com)
Alamance County Data Center Moratorium

WUNC / WFDD, WhiteFiber Buys Land in Yadkin County for Data Center Campuses
Current reporting on Yadkin County’s two-year moratorium and WhiteFiber’s proposed NC-2 and NC-3 campuses. (WUNC)
WUNC Report on Yadkin County Data Centers

Shared by #GoRightNews
peterboykin.com/