RALEIGH — An ethics complaint was filed this month over ads run by North Carolina Supreme Court Associate Justice Allison Riggs.
Riggs, appointed to the position by Gov. Roy Cooper, is seeking to retain the seat this election cycle. Her Republican opponent is Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin.
She was elevated to the high court in September 2023 after first being appointed by Cooper to the Court of Appeals nine months earlier. Riggs was the least-tenured member of the Court of Appeals at the time Cooper put her on the Supreme Court.
At the time of her appointment to the Court of Appeals, Riggs worked as a litigator with the Southern Coalition for Social Justice (SCSJ), an outfit known for suing the state over elections laws. At SCSJ, Riggs worked under Anita Earls, who successfully ran for the state’s Supreme Court in 2018.
The ethics complaint was filed by three Republican lawmakers: Sens. Buck Newton (Wilson), Amy Galey (Alamance) and Danny Britt (Robeson). All three are lawyers.
“As attorneys who value the integrity of our judicial process, it has become clear that Justice Riggs is guided more by the politics of winning an election rather than honoring the Code of Judicial Conduct,” the complaint states. “The Code prohibits any judicial candidate, regardless of the office they seek, from taking a position on any issue that may appear before their court. However, Justice Riggs is blatantly violating the Code.”
Per the complaint, Newton has asked for a “full investigation” of Riggs’ activities by the Judicial Standards Commission, adding, “If judicial candidates are allowed to run campaigns on legislating from the bench, then we legislators will need to take action in the upcoming session to prevent such a breach of judicial conduct from ever happening again.”
The complaint is likely referring to web-based attack ads run by Riggs’ campaign that appear to take position on the topic of abortion.
In the web ad “Families like mine,” Riggs implies Griffin could be a deciding judge on an abortion ban that doesn’t currently exist and tries to tie Griffin to Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson on the issue.
“As women, we should be in charge of our own reproductive health care, but our rights are at risk,” Riggs says in the ad. “Mark Robinson says he wants to ban abortion with no exceptions, and my opponent could decide if his ban becomes law. I’ll fight for your rights, protecting families like mine and yours.”
As the complaint notes, under the N.C. Judicial Code of Conduct, judges cannot take positions on topics that may come before the court.
Earlier this month North State Journal asked the N.C Administrative Office of the Courts (NCAOC) about any complaints being filed recently with the Judicial Standards Commission. In an email response, NCAOC said, “Any items before the Judicial Standards Commission are confidential and not public record until the Supreme Court issues an order or opinion.”
The NCAOC also referred North State Journal to a 2022 memo on political conduct for judges.
One section of the memo addresses political campaign ads and lists certain activities that violate the Code of Judicial Conduct, such as materials suggesting “a judge’s bias or predisposition for or against certain litigants, or that would create a reasonable suggestion that a judge would show favor toward a particular side in a legal dispute.”
Another prohibited activity is an “intentional and knowingly false representation about an opponent.”
Following the complaint’s filing, Griffin began running ads of his own, dubbing Riggs a “radical liberal” and saying Riggs was under investigation.
When North State Journal contacted the Riggs campaign in the first week of October about whether they felt the ads were crossing a line with the code of conduct, we were referred to attorney Press Millen. Millen is the husband of State Board of Elections member Siobhan Millen.
“The campaign has no comment at this time,” Press Millen responded in an email.
Reporting by other media outlets also cites Millen’s reaction to the ethics complaint and Griffin’s ads by sending Griffin a cease-and-desist letter that said the ads were false and Riggs had not yet been informed she was the subject of a formal investigation.
According to the News & Observer, “Millen reminded Griffin that the commission’s investigations and complaints are confidential” and that using that information to attack Riggs “would constitute an egregious violation of the commission’s rules in an effort to turn the commission’s deliberations into fodder for political attacks.”
Despite Millen’s assertions in the letter to Griffin, Riggs has publicly posted the complaint letter on X, stating the lawmakers were “falsely accusing” her of violating judicial conduct codes.
In the thread on X that included the complaint letter, Riggs wrote, “I will not be intimidated by these Republican attacks on judicial independence and free speech. All voters deserve to cast an informed vote, which means knowing about my values and seeing the receipts on my opponent’s record.”
She also called it a “troubling moment for judicial independence in our state” before saying lawmakers “should never be able to weaponize the nonpartisan Judicial Standards Commission to assist a political ally in winning a judicial election.”
The Griffin campaign indicated he is unable to respond at the moment because he is currently deployed with the National Guard engaged in Hurricane Helene efforts, which bars him from political engagements while serving.
Riggs’ campaign ads are not the only communications using the issue of abortion on her behalf.
In the past month, mailers from “NC Families First” and “Fair Courts Now” supporting Riggs have gone out to voters.
The mailers are legal size and two-sided, and the return address says it is “paid for by Fair Courts Now” and is not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.
The front side of the “Fair Courts Now” mailer has pictures of Griffin and Riggs with the words “2024 North Carolina Supreme Court Voter Guide above the candidates, giving the impression that the mailing is an official voter guide.
On the bottom of the front page, the text reads, “This guide contains important information about each candidate’s record on reproductive health, personal privacy and the role of government in restricting liberty.”
On the reverse side, text describes Riggs “opinions” on the topics listed on the front side as pro-personal privacy, pro-abortion rights and pro-individual freedom while at the same time saying the opposite of Griffin.
The reverse side of the mailer uses footnotes for each item listed at the bottom of the page but gives only a publication name and date with no specific articles listed.
The “Fair Courts Now” mailers include the website “ncvoter.org,” which is maintained by the left-leaning Democracy NC.
Democracy NC is among several progressive and left-leaning organizations backing Riggs, as well as the National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NDRC), run by former Attorney General Eric Holder and former President Barack Obama.
The NDRC teamed up with Planned Parenthood and committed to dropping $5 million into supreme court races in various states.
Holder has endorsed Riggs just as he did Earls when she ran in 2018. Before the two women joined the court, Earls and Riggs were partners at the Southern Coalition for Southern Justice.
The year Earls won her seat, the NRDC’s PAC gave $500,000 to the North Carolina Democratic Party in two $250,000 donations, one of which went directly to the N.C. Democratic Party’s Judicial Fund to back Earls. The NDRC itself gave the maximum donation of $5,200 to Earls.
The complaint about the ads is not the first time Riggs has been criticized for partisanship or a lack of impartiality while serving on the state Supreme Court.
In her dissent in the case deciding Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s name being removed from the ballot as a presidential candidate, Riggs arguably attacked the integrity of the high court, writing in her dissent that because of that decision, “any public aspersions cast on the impartiality, independence and dignity of our state courts are well-earned.”
Riggs doubled down on that dissent in an interview with the progressive news website Slate.
“It is not my job to denigrate the integrity of the courts,” Riggs said. “But when the courts need to be held accountable, it is my job as a constitutional officer to make sure that voters have information to understand when a court is acting inappropriately — as I suggested in my dissent.”
Riggs made it clear in the interview that she opposes the Dobbs decision, which returned abortion law decisions to the states, and her idea of being impartial on that topic is to talk about “her values” with voters.
Similar to her comments to Slate, in the last month Riggs accepted the endorsement of the AFL-CIO labor union and in her speech spoke of needing people on the bench who “share our values.”
