{ "id": 11890512, "name": "SHERRY D. THOMAS, both individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, Defendant and SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DAN GLICKMAN, Intervenor-Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "Thomas v. North Carolina Department of Human Resources", "decision_date": "1996-12-12", "docket_number": "No. COA95-1310", "first_page": "698", "last_page": "713", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "124 N.C. App. 698" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "898 F. Supp. 315", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 7825157 ], "year": 1995, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/898/0315-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 C.F.R. \u00a7 273.16", "category": "laws:admin_compilation", "reporter": "C.F.R.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(e)(8)(iii)" } ], "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "7 C.F.R. \u00a7 276.2", "category": "laws:admin_compilation", "reporter": "C.F.R.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(b)(5)(ii)" } ], "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "7 C.F.R. \u00a7 272.4", "category": "laws:admin_compilation", "reporter": "C.F.R.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(e)" } ], "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "7 U.S.C. \u00a7 2015", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "U.S.C.", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(b)(1)" }, { "page": "(b)(1)" } ], "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "428 S.E.2d 267", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "'Anderson /\"" } ], "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "109 N.C. App. 680", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526219 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "'Anderson /\"" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/109/0680-01" ] }, { "cite": "484 U.S. 820", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 600954, 601124, 602313, 600297, 600266, 600213, 601241, 602330, 599483, 600636, 601501, 600798 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/484/0820-01", "/us/484/0820-11", "/us/484/0820-12", "/us/484/0820-06", "/us/484/0820-07", "/us/484/0820-04", "/us/484/0820-08", "/us/484/0820-03", "/us/484/0820-05", "/us/484/0820-09", "/us/484/0820-02", "/us/484/0820-10" ] }, { "cite": "67 F.3d 256", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 7414332 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "259" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/67/0256-01" ] }, { "cite": "493 U.S. 455", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11332379 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "458" }, { "page": "894" }, { "page": "458-59" }, { "page": "894" }, { "page": "459-60" }, { "page": "894-95" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/493/0455-01" ] }, { "cite": "228 F. Supp. 877", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 1500896 ], "year": 1964, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "878" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/228/0877-01" ] }, { "cite": "899 F.2d 329", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 10528586 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "332" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/899/0329-01" ] }, { "cite": "98 L. Ed. 2d 41", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "807 F.2d 376", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1649656 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "379" }, { "page": "379" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/807/0376-01" ] }, { "cite": "206 S.E.2d 203", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "285 N.C. 530", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565346 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/285/0530-01" ] }, { "cite": "203 S.E.2d 411", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "415" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "21 N.C. App. 102", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8554526 ], "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "106" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/21/0102-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 L. Ed. 60", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "case_ids": [ 12121622 ], "year": 1803, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "73" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/5/0137-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 L. Ed. 2d 921", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "90 S.E.2d 700", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1956, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "703" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "243 N.C. 405", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625334 ], "year": 1956, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "408" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/243/0405-01" ] }, { "cite": "76 Colum.L.Rev. 385", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "Colum. L. Rev.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "46 L. Ed. 2d 659", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "746" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "424 U.S. 1", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "122" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "501 U.S. 252", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1107720 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "272" }, { "page": "256" }, { "page": "272" }, { "page": "256" }, { "page": "272" }, { "page": "256" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/501/0252-01" ] }, { "cite": "286 S.E.2d 79", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 5, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "84" }, { "page": "82" }, { "page": "83" }, { "page": "83-84" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "304 N.C. 591", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570176 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "595-96" }, { "page": "599" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/304/0591-01" ] }, { "cite": "97 L. Ed. 1303", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "year": 1953, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1309" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "345 U.S. 629", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 372865 ], "year": 1953, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "632" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/345/0629-01" ] }, { "cite": "436 U.S. 725", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1490200 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "731-32" }, { "page": "665-66" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/436/0725-01" ] }, { "cite": "420 U.S. 103", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11642843 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/420/0103-01" ] }, { "cite": "451 S.E.2d 858", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "867", "parenthetical": "quoting Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 110 n.11, 43 L. Ed. 2d 54, 63 n.11 (1974)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "339 N.C. 358", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2556344 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "371", "parenthetical": "quoting Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 110 n.11, 43 L. Ed. 2d 54, 63 n.11 (1974)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/339/0358-01" ] }, { "cite": "392 U.S. 40", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6167951 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "55-56" }, { "page": "930-31" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/392/0040-01" ] }, { "cite": "231 S.E.2d 633", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "634", "parenthetical": "citing Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 55-56, 20 L. Ed. 2d 917, 930-31 (1968)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "291 N.C. 693", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558987 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "694", "parenthetical": "citing Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 55-56, 20 L. Ed. 2d 917, 930-31 (1968)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/291/0693-01" ] }, { "cite": "213 S.E.2d 386", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "388" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "25 N.C. App. 394", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8554038 ], "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "397" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/25/0394-01" ] }, { "cite": "455 U.S. 283", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11305055 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "289", "parenthetical": "holding that \"a defendant's voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not deprive a . . . court of its power to determine the legality of the practice.\"" }, { "page": "159", "parenthetical": "holding that \"a defendant's voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not deprive a . . . court of its power to determine the legality of the practice.\"" }, { "page": "289" }, { "page": "159", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/455/0283-01" ] }, { "cite": "242 S.E.2d 653", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "654" }, { "page": "654" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "35 N.C. App. 768", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8552412 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "770" }, { "page": "770" }, { "page": "770" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/35/0768-01" ] }, { "cite": "394 U.S. 814", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6181588 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "816" }, { "page": "4" }, { "page": "816" }, { "page": "4" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/394/0814-01" ] }, { "cite": "352 S.E.2d 449", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "452", "parenthetical": "citing Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814, 816, 23 L. Ed. 2d 1, 4 (1969)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "84 N.C. App. 167", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12167895 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "170-71", "parenthetical": "citing Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814, 816, 23 L. Ed. 2d 1, 4 (1969)" }, { "page": "170-71" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/84/0167-01" ] }, { "cite": "484 U.S. 305", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 601398 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "317-18" }, { "page": "703" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/484/0305-01" ] }, { "cite": "468 S.E.2d 58", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "343 N.C. 117", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 798906 ], "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/343/0117-01" ] }, { "cite": "461 S.E.2d 354", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "357" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "120 N.C. App. 84", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11914119 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "88" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/120/0084-01" ] }, { "cite": "159 U.S. 651", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 5700679 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1895, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "653" }, { "page": "293-94" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/159/0651-01" ] }, { "cite": "78 N.C. 4", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8683663 ], "year": 1878, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "4" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/78/0004-01" ] }, { "cite": "472 U.S. 115", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1512392 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "128", "parenthetical": "quoting Goldberg, 397 U.S. at 262, 25 L. Ed. 2d at 295" }, { "page": "92", "parenthetical": "quoting Goldberg, 397 U.S. at 262, 25 L. Ed. 2d at 295" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/472/0115-01" ] }, { "cite": "397 U.S. 254", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12052726 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "262" }, { "page": "295" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/397/0254-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 L.Ed.2d 921", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "468 U.S. 1227", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11353027, 11353288, 11352937, 11353642, 11353134, 11353422, 11353529 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/468/1227-02", "/us/468/1227-04", "/us/468/1227-01", "/us/468/1227-07", "/us/468/1227-03", "/us/468/1227-05", "/us/468/1227-06" ] }, { "cite": "467 U.S. 837", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6209106 ], "weight": 10, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "843" }, { "page": "703" }, { "page": "843" }, { "page": "703" }, { "page": "842-43" }, { "page": "703" }, { "page": "843-44" }, { "page": "703" }, { "page": "843-44" }, { "page": "703" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/467/0837-01" ] }, { "cite": "486 U.S. 281", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6216290 ], "weight": 11, "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "291" }, { "page": "324" }, { "page": "291-92" }, { "page": "324" }, { "page": "291" }, { "page": "324" }, { "page": "291" }, { "page": "324" }, { "page": "291" }, { "page": "324" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/486/0281-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 U.S.C.A. \u00a7 2015", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "U.S.C.", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(b)(1)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "7 U.S.C. \u00a7 2015", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "U.S.C.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(b)(1)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "428 S.E.2d 267", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 5, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "268" }, { "page": "268-69" }, { "page": "269" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "109 N.C. App. 680", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526219 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "682" }, { "page": "682-83" }, { "page": "682-83" }, { "page": "682" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/109/0680-01" ] }, { "cite": "380 S.E.2d 770", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "324 N.C. 543", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2483650, 2488397, 2482318, 2484176, 2481778 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/324/0543-03", "/nc/324/0543-01", "/nc/324/0543-04", "/nc/324/0543-02", "/nc/324/0543-05" ] }, { "cite": "375 S.E.2d 708", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "711", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "92 N.C. App. 719", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527584 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "723", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/92/0719-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 U.S.C.A. \u00a7 2014", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "U.S.C.", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(b)" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "345 U.S. 629", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 372865 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1953, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "632" }, { "page": "1309" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/us/345/0629-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1352, "char_count": 36171, "ocr_confidence": 0.737, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.241885105059228e-07, "percentile": 0.8683745654669442 }, "sha256": "3b81672420bab72b043818eb71b8285294d50dde06c60ff60a1aaf63ec908531", "simhash": "1:b04ad5de060f04e6", "word_count": 5895 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:03:33.335576+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judge McGEE concurs.", "Judge WALKER dissents." ], "parties": [ "SHERRY D. THOMAS, both individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, Defendant and SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DAN GLICKMAN, Intervenor-Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "EAGLES, Judge.\nIn Anderson I, we determined \u201cthat 7 U.S.C.A. \u00a7 2015(b)(1) (1991) requires that food stamp disqualification periods begin immediately upon a finding that a violation has been committed.\u201d 109 N.C. App. at 682, 428 S.E.2d at 268. In reaching this conclusion, the Anderson I court supplied the following reasoning:\nThe Food Stamp Act of 1977 provides that:\nAny person who has been found by any State or federal court or administrative agency to have intentionally (A) made a false or misleading statement . . . for the purpose of . . . receiving . . . coupons . . . shall, immediately upon the rendering of such determination, become ineligible for further participation in the program . . . (ii) for a period of one year upon the second occasion of any such determination.\n7 U.S.C.A. 2015(b)(1) (1991) (emphasis added). The federal regulations interpreting this statute, enacted by the Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to 7 U.S.C.A. 2013(c) (1991), however, postpone the penalty period mandated by the statute. 7 C.F.R. 273.16(e)(8)(iii) (1992) provides that \u201c[i]f the individual is not eligible for the Program at the time the disqualification period is to begin, the period shall be postponed until the individual applies for and is determined eligible for benefits. ...\u201d\nIn reviewing the validity of an agency\u2019s regulation, a court \u201cmust first determine if the regulation is consistent with the language of the statute.\u201d K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291, 100 L.Ed.2d 313, 324 (1988). Both the courts and the agencies \u201cmust give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.\u201d Id. (quoting Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843, 81 L.Ed.2d 694, 703, reh\u2019g denied, 468 U.S. 1227, 82 L.Ed.2d 921 (1984)). Therefore, if the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, and the regulation is contrary to that language, \u201cthat is the end of the matter\u201d and the regulation must be declared invalid. See K Mart, 486 U.S. at 291-92, 100 L.Ed.2d at 324; Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843, 81 L.Ed.2d at 703. While traditionally the courts pay deference to an agency regulation, such deference is inappropriate where the regulation alters the clearly expressed intent of Congress. KMart, 486 U.S. at 291, 100 L.Ed.2d at 324. Only where the language of the statute is unclear, ambiguous, or fails to answer the specific question at issue should deference be paid to a contested agency interpretation. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-43, 81 L.Ed.2d at 703.\nThe specific issue in the case at bar is clearly resolved by the statute. The language of the statute requires a penalty of a specified period of time, to commence immediately upon a determination that a food stamp recipient has violated the provisions of the Food Stamp Act.\nAnderson I, 109 N.C. App. at 682-83, 428 S.E.2d at 268-69. Since Anderson I, and during the pendency of this appeal, the USDA amended its regulations to eliminate the postponement period declared invalid in Anderson I. The current appeal arises and persists because, in the period between the issuance of Anderson I on 20 April 1993 and the effective date the USDA changed its regulations on 1 February 1996, the NCDHR refused to apply the rule of Anderson I to other similarly situated plaintiffs; instead, the NCDHR continued to enforce its regulations interpreting the Food Stamp Act in contravention of the opinion of this Court.\nI.\nPlaintiff first argues that each member of the class affected is entitled to the Food Stamps they would have received between 20 April 1993 and 1 February 1996 had the NCDHR uniformly applied Anderson I. Plaintiff bases this argument on the principle first articulated in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 25 L. Ed. 2d 287 (1970), that \u201c[flood-stamp benefits . . . \u2018are a matter of statutory entitlement for persons qualified to receive them.\u2019 \u201d Atkins v. Parker, 472 U.S. 115, 128, 86 L. Ed. 2d 81, 92 (1985) (quoting Goldberg, 397 U.S. at 262, 25 L. Ed. 2d at 295). We need not further address plaintiffs argument here, however, because defendant NCDHR has conceded in a response filed here to an order of this Court that the members of the class identified by plaintiff are entitled to the full monetary compensation prayed for by plaintiff. Subject to some further refinement, the NCDHR has established a compensation plan to this effect this goal with a target completion date of 31 March 1997.\nPlaintiff nevertheless expresses concern regarding the administration of the NCDHR\u2019s proposed compensation plan. Specifically, plaintiff worries that the NCDHR\u2019s plan will afford each member of the class affected only an average compensation rate, rather than affording each an amount specifically tailored to that person\u2019s individual circumstances. We note, however, that no class has of yet been certified by the trial court in this action and that no potential claimant\u2019s rights have been prejudiced. If an individual is inadequately compensated, that person retains every right to pursue their claim administratively before the NCDHR and thereafter in the courts of this State.\nII.\nPlaintiff next argues that the North Carolina Constitution requires the NCDHR to acquiesce in statutory interpretations made by North Carolina\u2019s appellate courts to the extent that they conflict with the NCDHR\u2019s interpretations. Plaintiff contends that the NCDHR and other administrative agencies of the State must give full effect to the statutory constructions of this court both as to the named litigants and as to all persons similarly situated. We agree.\nA.\nPrior to addressing the merits of plaintiff\u2019s argument, we note that a question of mootness arises here. Now that the USDA has revised its regulations in accordance with this Court\u2019s order in Anderson I to eliminate the disqualification postponement requirement, defendant NCDHR assures this Court that it has voluntarily ceased its refusal to apply the principles of Anderson I equally to all similarly situated persons. Defendant argues that, by voluntarily ceasing to apply Anderson I uniformly, the challenged conduct no longer exists to be challenged and the case is rendered moot. In turn, plaintiff counters that an exception to the mootness doctrine applies and that we must therefore reach the merits of this issue. We agree with plaintiffs contention that the mootness doctrine does not preclude our review of the merits here.\nFor over a century, both the courts of this State and the federal courts have generally refrained from addressing questions deemed moot. See, e.g., Crawley v. Woodfin, 78 N.C. 4, 4 (1878); Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653, 40 L. Ed. 293, 293-94 (1895). In State court, the exclusion of moot questions is considered \u201ca principle of judicial restraint . . .,\u201d N.C. Council of Churches v. State of North Carolina, 120 N.C. App. 84, 88, 461 S.E.2d 354, 357 (1995), aff\u2019d, 343 N.C. 117, 468 S.E.2d 58 (1996), while in federal court the mootness doctrine is considered to have constitutional jurisdictional underpinnings. E.g., Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 317-18, 98 L. Ed. 2d 686, 703 (1988). Despite this difference in origin, the limits of the mootness doctrine are articulated almost identically in the federal courts and the courts of this State. E.g., In re Jackson, 84 N.C. App. 167, 170-71, 352 S.E.2d 449, 452 (1987) (citing Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814, 816, 23 L. Ed. 2d 1, 4 (1969)). If anything, the mootness doctrine is less restrictive in the courts of North Carolina than in the federal courts. See, e.g., Matthews v. Dept. of Transportation, 35 N.C. App. 768, 770, 242 S.E.2d 653, 654 (1978).\n\u201cThe general rule is that an appeal presenting a question which has become moot will be dismissed.\u201d Matthews, 35 N.C. App. at 770, 242 S.E.2d at 654. This general rule, however, is subject to at least five well-known exceptions. E.g., City of Mesquite v. Aladdin\u2019s Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 289, 71 L. Ed. 2d 152, 159 (1982) (holding that \u201ca defendant\u2019s voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not deprive a . . . court of its power to determine the legality of the practice.\u201d); In re Jackson, 84 N.C. App. at 170-71, 352 S.E.2d at 452 (citing Moore, 394 U.S. at 816, 23 L. Ed. 2d at 4) (holding that courts may review cases that are otherwise moot but that are \u201ccapable of repetition, yet evading review.\u201d); Matthews, 35 N.C. App. at 770, 242 S.E.2d at 654 (citing Leak v. High Point City Council, 25 N.C. App. 394, 397, 213 S.E.2d 386, 388 (1975)) (holding that the court has a \u201cduty\u201d to address an otherwise moot case when the \u201cquestion involved is a matter of public interest.\u201d); In re Hatley, 291 N.C. 693, 694, 231 S.E.2d 633, 634 (1977) (citing Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 55-56, 20 L. Ed. 2d 917, 930-31 (1968)) (stating that a case must be decided, \u201ceven when the terms of the judgment below have been fully carried out, if collateral legal consequences of an adverse nature can reasonably be expected to result therefrom . . . .\u201d); Simeon v. Hardin, 339 N.C. 358, 371, 451 S.E.2d 858, 867 (1994) (quoting Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 110 n.11, 43 L. Ed. 2d 54, 63 n.11 (1974)) (recognizing a \u201cnarrow class of cases in which the termination of a class representative\u2019s claim does not moot the claims of the unnamed members of the class.\u201d).\nWhile we believe that both the \u201cpublic interest\u201d and the \u201ccapable of repetition, yet evading review\u201d exceptions also apply to the case at bar, we conclude the most applicable exception is that which provides for review of cases where a defendant voluntarily ceases its illegal conduct during the pendency of the appeal. Quern v. Mandley, 436 U.S. 725, 731-32, 56 L. Ed. 2d 658, 665-66 (1978). As the United States Supreme Court stated in City of Mesquite:\nIt is well settled that a defendant\u2019s voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not deprive a . . . court of its power to determine the legality of the practice. Such abandonment is an important factor bearing on the question of whether a court should exercise its power to enjoin the defendant from renewing the practice, but that is a matter relating to the exercise rather than the existence of judicial power.\n455 U.S. at 289, 71 L. Ed. 2d at 159 (emphasis added). The NCDHR here has voluntarily ceased its challenged practice in the face of this appeal and in the face of the USDA\u2019s concordant decision to cease its similarly challenged practice. If we were to decide that we must dismiss this or any substantially similar case as moot, defendants like the NCDHR here could virtually always manage to cease their offending practices in time to avoid meaningful review. Having ceased their practices and secured dismissal of the pending litigation, defendants would then be, as defendants would be here, \u201cfree to return to [their] old ways.\u201d United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632, 97 L. Ed. 1303, 1309 (1953). Accordingly, we decline to dismiss as moot plaintiffs appeal on this issue.\nB.\nTurning now to the merits, Article I, section 6 of the North Carolina Constitution is entitled \u201c[separation of powers\u201d and provides that \u201c[t]he legislative, executive, and supreme judicial powers of the State government shall be forever separate and distinct from each other.\u201d N.C. Const, art. I, \u00a7 6. We hold that the challenged conduct on the part of the NCDHR here violates this section of the State constitution.\nIn State ex rel. Wallace v. Bone, 304 N.C. 591, 286 S.E.2d 79 (1982), our Supreme Court engaged in an extensive historical analysis of the separation of powers doctrine before concluding \u201c[t]here should be no doubt that the principle of separation of powers is a cornerstone of our state and federal governments.\u201d Id. at 601, 286 S.E.2d at 84. The Wallace court recognized that, in addition to Article I, section 6, other constitutional provisions reinforce the essential nature of the requirement that our State government\u2019s powers be divided among separate and distinct branches.\nSection 1 of Article II of our present constitution provides that \u201c[t]he legislative power of the State shall be vested in the General Assembly, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.\u201d Section 1 of Article III provides that \u201c [t]he executive power of the State shall be vested in the Governor.\u201d Section 1 of Article IV provides:\nThe judicial power of the State shall, except as provided in Section 3 of this Article, be vested in a Court for the Trial of Impeachments and in a General Court of Justice. The General Assembly shall have no power to deprive the judicial department of any power or jurisdiction that rightfully pertains to it as a co-ordinate department of the government, nor shall it establish or authorize any courts other than as permitted by this Article.\nWallace, 304 N.C. at 595-96, 286 S.E.2d at 82.\nThis commitment to the principal of separation of powers exemplified in our State constitution is virtually identical in practice to that shown at the federal level. E.g., id. at 598, 286 S.E.2d at 83. Like the federal courts, we have long recognized that \u201c[t]he ultimate purpose of this separation of powers is to protect the'liberty and security of the governed.\u201d Airports Authority v. Citizens for Noise Abatement, 501 U.S. 252, 272, 115 L. Ed. 2d 236, 256 (1991). Our constitutional system of separated powers and checks and balances is a \u201cself-executing safeguard against the encroachment or aggrandizement of one branch at the expense of the other.\u201d Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 122, 46 L. Ed. 2d 659, 746 (1976).\nThe essence of the separation of powers concept... is that each branch, in different ways, within the sphere of its defined powers and subject to the distinct institutional responsibilities of the others, is essential to the liberty and security of the people. Each branch, in its own way, is the people\u2019s agent, its fiduciary for certain purposes.\nAirports Authority, 501 U.S. at 272, 115 L. Ed. 2d at 256 (quoting Levi, Some Aspects of Separation of Powers, 76 Colum.L.Rev. 385-386 (1976)).\nSeparation of powers is violated when \u201c[fiduciaries do not meet their obligations by arrogating to themselves the distinct duties of their master\u2019s other agents.\u201d Id. Traditionally, at both the federal and state level, \u201c[violations of the separation-of-powers principle have been uncommon because each branch has traditionally respected the prerogatives of the other two.\u201d Airports Authority, 501 U.S. at 272, 115 L. Ed. 2d at 256; Wallace, 304 N.C. at 599, 286 S.E.2d at 83-84. Nevertheless, we are sensitive to our responsibility to enforce the principle when necessary, as we do here.\nThis is not to say that the separation of powers clause in our Constitution requires or even authorizes us to broadly and generally supervise the administrative and executive agencies of our government. On the contrary, as we recognized in Burton v. Reidsville, 243 N.C. 405, 408, 90 S.E.2d 700, 703 (1956),\nwe operate under the philosophy of the separation of powers, and the courts were not created or vested with authority to act as supervisory agencies to control and direct the action of executive and administrative agencies or officials. So long as officers act in good faith and in accord with the law, the courts are powerless to act \u2014 and rightly so.\nId. This standard of deference, however, does not render us powerless here. Deference is inappropriate where, by attempting to arrogate to itself the-, distinct duties of the judiciary in having the final word in interpreting statutes, the NCDHR has violated separation of powers and acted in disregard of the law.\nSimilar to the deference we apply here at the State level, the federal courts also defer to agency regulations in a wide variety of contexts. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, 843-44, 81 L. Ed. 2d 694, 703, reh\u2019g denied, 468 U.S. 1227, 82 L. Ed. 2d 921 (1984). Under this standard of deference set out in Chevron, courts reviewing federal agency regulations must nevertheless first determine if the regulation in question \u201cis consistent with the language of the statute.\u201d K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291, 100 L. Ed. 2d 313, 324 (1988). This minimal level of oversight is central to the doctrine of separation of powers as \u201c[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.\u201d Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177, 2 L. Ed. 60, 73 (1803); See, e.g., Smith v. Keator, 21 N.C. App. 102, 106, 203 S.E.2d 411, 415, aff\u2019d, 285 N.C. 530, 206 S.E.2d 203 (1974).\nWhen a court determines that an agency\u2019s regulation is contrary to statute, the agency must acquiesce to that court\u2019s interpretation and apply the court\u2019s interpretation uniformly thereafter within the jurisdictional bounds of the interpreting court. E.g., Hyatt v. Heckler, 807 F.2d 376, 379 (4th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 820, 98 L. Ed. 2d 41 (1987); Hyatt v. Sullivan, 899 F.2d 329, 332 (4th Cir. 1990). \u201cThe separation of powers doctrine requires administrative agencies to follow the law of the ... courts [which have] jurisdiction over the cause of action.\u201d Heckler, 807 F.2d at 379.\nAn agency of the government entrusted with the administration and enforcement of a . . . statute ... is bound to pay due respect to the decisions of this Court in matters brought before it from said agency and has no right or authority to disregard such decisions.\nIf the agency is dissatisfied with any ruling or decision of this Court, it should seek its reversal or modification by the legal media provided by our laws for the review thereof.\nAbsent any such reversal or modification, [and absent appropriate legislative relief,] the refusal or failure to follow such decisions in future cases appears to be contemptuous.\nFlores v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare, 228 F. Supp. 877, 878 (D.P.R. 1964).\nIn sum, we hold that the separation of powers doctrine requires that the NCDHR and all other administrative agencies of the state give full effect to orders of this Court and acquiesce in the statutory and constitutional interpretations determined by this Court and by our Supreme Court. It is well-established that when an appellate court of this State determines that a statute enacted by the General Assembly is facially unconstitutional, that statute may not be subsequently enforced against any citizen or entity. An order of this Court proclaiming a statute unconstitutional applies not only to the named litigants, it voids the statute entirely as if it no longer existed. Once a statute is determined to be unconstitutional, no private citizen or division of the State may take any further action pursuant to the provisions of that unconstitutional statute.\nThe same analysis holds true here, where we determined, not that a statute was unconstitutional, but that a federal administrative regulation and its corresponding state regulation, impermissibly conflicted with the language and intent of the federal enabling statute. In the same way a statute that conflicts with the constitution can have no effect, a regulation that conflicts with its enabling legislation can also have no effect. An order of this Court determining that a regulation impermissibly conflicts with the enabling statute has the effect of invalidating or voiding the regulation, and no action whatsoever by the administrative agency can breath life into the invalidated regulation absent reversal or modification of this Court\u2019s order by a higher court or absent legislative action sufficiently altering the enabling act.\nIII.\nWe now address defendant NCDHR\u2019s contention that a federal administrative regulation represents authority over its actions superior to an order of this Court. Defendant advances this argument to justify its refusal to apply this Court\u2019s decision in Anderson I to all similarly situated claimants. On the facts of this case, we are not persuaded.\nDefendant NCDHR\u2019s argument here seems to raise two separate questions: (1) whether as a matter of federalism, we have the power to interpret the Food Stamp Act, and (2) whether as a matter of deference we may interpret the Food Stamp Act contrary to an interpretation previously advanced by a federal administrative agency, here the USDA.\nA.\nDefendant NCDHR\u2019s argument here presents primarily a question of division of powers rather than of separation of powers. It is well-settled that \u201cunder our federal system, the States possess sovereignty concurrent with that of the Federal Government subject only to limitations imposed by the Supremacy Clause.\u201d Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455, 458, 107 L. Ed. 2d 887, 894 (1990).\nUnder this system of dual sovereignty,... state courts have inherent authority ... to adjudicate claims arising under the laws of the United States. . . . [I]f exclusive jurisdiction be neither express or implied, the State courts have concurrent jurisdiction whenever, by their own constitution, they are competent to take it.\nId. at 458-59, 107 L. Ed. 2d at 894. We conclude here that this Court, in Anderson I, acted within its authority in interpreting the Food Stamp Act and consequently invalidating the USDA\u2019s conflicting regulation. We note here that there is no evidence that Congress has divested the State courts of jurisdiction in any way relevant to the case at bar. See, e.g., Tafflin, 493 U.S. at 459-60, 107 L. Ed. 2d at 894-95.\nThe established law as stated here places no new and undue burden on either the USDA or the NCDHR in carrying out their duties administering the provisions of the Food Stamp Act. Federal administrative agencies regularly must deal with differing statutory interpretations among the federal circuits. Often these differing interpretations require adjustments in the agency\u2019s administration among the circuits with the differences confined to the geographic boundaries of the circuits in question. Here again, it is irrelevant that an order of this Court may require the USDA to administer the Food Stamp Act differently in North Carolina than it may elsewhere across the country. The remedy available to the USDA and the NCDHR is to seek reversal or modification from a higher court or to secure appropriate legislative relief.\nB.\nIn Anderson I, we declared invalid a USDA regulation interpreting a provision of the Food Stamp Act (codified at 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 2015(b)(1)). Anderson I, 109 N.C. App. at 682-83, 428 S.E.2d at 269. The NCDHR had enacted an identical regulation pursuant to its role as administrator of the Food Stamp Act at the State level. Anderson I served to invalidate that identical State regulation as well because it also impermissibly conflicted with the clear and unambiguous language of the Food Stamp Act. Id. In some instances, we would be required to defer to the agency\u2019s contested interpretation and we would lack authority to do otherwise. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843-44, 81 L. Ed. 2d at 703. We correctly concluded in Anderson I, however, that this standard of federal deference did not bar our review of the suspect regulation there. See Garcia v. Concannon, 67 F.3d 256, 259 (9th Cir. 1995). We recognized that judicial deference is inappropriate where the challenged regulation \u201calters the clearly expressed intent of Congress.\u201d Anderson I, 109 N.C. App. at 682, 428 S.E.2d at 269 (citing K Mart, 486 U.S. at 291, 100 L. Ed. 2d at 324). Accordingly, having correctly concluded in Anderson I that Chevron deference did not bar our review, we need not address this issue again here.\nIV.\nFinally, we address defendant NCDHR\u2019s contention, made at oral argument, that it could not acquiesce in this Court\u2019s statutory interpretation because to do so would perhaps endanger some amount of federal funding or at least require the agency to undertake the somewhat onerous process of securing the necessary funding waiver from the USDA. We find this contention patently contrary to virtually every ideal upon which our government stands. Under our system of government, the NCDHR must obey duly enacted laws and duly entered court orders just as any citizen must. That the NCDHR might lose some federal funding because of this constitutionally required obedience is of no import \u2014 the NCDHR\u2019s recourse is through constitutionally established judicial or legislative processes.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudge McGEE concurs.\nJudge WALKER dissents.", "type": "majority", "author": "EAGLES, Judge." }, { "text": "Judge Walker\ndissenting.\nI respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in that I believe this case has been rendered moot by the USDA amending its regulations to eliminate the postponement period declared invalid in Anderson I. This case does not fit into the exception to the mootness doctrine that allows for review when a defendant voluntarily ceases illegal conduct during the pendency of an appeal, as defendant NCDHR did not voluntarily cease its refusal to apply Anderson I. By amending its regulations, the USDA mandated that defendant NCDHR uniformly apply Anderson I, and defendant NCDHR was required to obey this mandate according to 7 U.S.C.A. \u00a7 2014(b) (1988), which declares that state eligibility standards must be consistent with federal eligibility standards. In addition, defendant NCDHR\u2019s failure to apply Anderson I between 20 April 1993 and 1 February 1996 cannot be said to amount to illegal conduct. The USDA did not amend its regulations until 1 February 1996, and up to that time, defendant NCDHR was simply enforcing its regulations in the absence of further directives from the USDA.\nThis case also does not fit into the \u201ccapable of repetition, yet evading review\u201d exception to the mootness doctrine. This exception applies if \u201c(1) the challenged action [is] in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there [is] a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.\u201d Crumpler v. Thornburg, 92 N.C. App. 719, 723, 375 S.E.2d 708, 711, disc. review denied, 324 N.C. 543, 380 S.E.2d 770 (1989) (citations omitted). Because the USDA amended its regulations to eliminate the postponement period complained of in Anderson I, defendant NCDHR is bound to follow USDA regulations and is not \u201cfree to return to [its] old ways.\u201d United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632, 97 L. Ed. 2d 1303, 1309 (1953). It is therefore unlikely that plaintiff will be subjected to the same action again.\nFinally, plaintiffs concern regarding defendant NCDHR\u2019s proposed compensation plan is premature. As the majority states, any member of the class affected by the compensation plan retains the right to pursue their claim administratively before defendant NCDHR if that member\u2019s rights are prejudiced.\nFor the above reasons, I believe this appeal should be dismissed as moot.", "type": "dissent", "author": "Judge Walker" } ], "attorneys": [ "Central Carolina Legal Services, Inc., by Stanley B. Sprague, for plaintiff-appellant.", "Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Special Deputy Attorney General Robert J. Blum and Associate Attorney General Elizabeth L. Oxley, for defendant-appellee North Carolina Department of Human Resources." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "SHERRY D. THOMAS, both individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, Defendant and SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DAN GLICKMAN, Intervenor-Defendant\nNo. COA95-1310\n(Filed 12 December 1996)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 175 (NCI4th)\u2014 mootness does not preclude review \u2014 defendant voluntarily ceased practice\u2014 postponement of disqualification period \u2014 food stamp recipients\nMootness does not preclude review of the merits where the Department of Human Resources voluntarily ceased its challenged practice of postponing the disqualification period of food stamp recipients in the face of plaintiffs appeal and in the face of the USDA\u2019s concordant decision to cease its similarly challenged practice. The Court of Appeals had previously ruled in Anderson v. N.C. Dept, of Human Resources, 109 N.C. App. 680, 428 S.E.2d 267 (1993), that the Department wrongly postponed recipients\u2019 food stamp fraud disqualification period in violation of 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 2015(b)(1), which requires that those disqualification periods begin immediately.\nAm Jur 2d, Appellate Review \u00a7\u00a7 646-649.\n2. Constitutional Law \u00a7 12 (NCI4th); Social Services and Public Welfare \u00a7 20 (NCI4th)\u2014 Court of Appeals decision \u2014 agency\u2019s failure to apply to others \u2014 violation of separation of powers provision\nThe NCDHR violated the separation of powers provision of Art. I, \u00a7 16 of the N.C. Constitution by applying a decision of the Court of appeals \u2014 that USDA and NCDHR regulations permitting postponement of the one-year food stamp disqualification period for fraud conflicted with the Food Stamp Act \u2014 only to the plaintiff in that case and not to others similarly situated.\nAm Jur 2d, Constitutional Law \u00a7\u00a7 294-359; Welfare Laws \u00a7\u00a7 26-31.\n3. Constitutional Law \u00a7 2 (NCI4th)\u2014 division of powers\u2014 authority to interpret Food Stamp Act\nUnder the federal system, the states possess sovereignty concurrent with that of the Federal Government subject only to limitations imposed by the Supremacy Clause. The Court of Appeals acted within its authority in interpreting the Food Stamp Act and consequently invalidating the USDA\u2019s conflicting regulation where there was no evidence that Congress had divested the state courts of jurisdiction.\nAm Jur 2d, Constitutional Law \u00a7\u00a7 291 et seq.; Welfare Laws \u00a7\u00a7 26-31.\n4. Courts \u00a7 137 (NCI4th); Social Services and Public Welfare \u00a7 20 (NCI4th)\u2014 interpretation of federal act \u2014 deference to federal agency not required\nThe Court of Appeals was not required to defer to the USDA\u2019s interpretation of the Food Stamp Act but could declare a USDA regulation invalid as being in conflict with the Act.\nAm Jur 2d, Conflict of Laws \u00a7\u00a7 14, 15; Welfare Laws \u00a7\u00a7 26-31.\n5. Social Services and Public Welfare \u00a7 20 (NCI4th)\u2014 argument not valid \u2014 effect on federal funding \u2014 Department must obey Court\u2019s order\nThere was no validity to the Department of Human Resources\u2019 argument that it could not acquiesce in the Court of Appeals\u2019 interpretation of the Food Stamp Act because to do so would perhaps endanger some amount of federal funding or at least require the agency to undertake the somewhat onerous process of securing the necessary funding waiver from the USDA. The Department must obey duly enacted laws and duly entered court orders just as any citizen must.\nAm Jur 2d, Welfare Laws \u00a7\u00a7 26-31.\nJudge Walker dissenting.\nAppeal by plaintiff from order entered 4 October 1995 by Judge Preston Cornelius in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 August 1996.\nOn 24 August 1989, the Guilford County Department of Social Services (\u201cDSS\u201d) issued a decision determining that Edith Anderson fraudulently failed to report additional household income on her food stamp application dated 2 February 1988. Because of this violation, DSS notified Edith Anderson that she would be disqualified from receiving food stamps for a period of one year. Over one year later, in January 1991, Ms. Anderson reapplied for food stamps and was found income eligible to participate in the program. DSS then notified Ms. Anderson, however, that she would have to wait one additional year to receive food stamps because the disqualification period did not begin until she had reapplied and been determined income eligible for food stamps.\nMs. Anderson exhausted her administrative remedies and, on 26 July 1991, filed a complaint in Guilford County Superior Court alleging that the North Carolina Department of Human Resources (\u201cNCDHR\u201d) had wrongly postponed her food stamp fraud disqualification period in violation of 7 U.S.C. \u00a7 2015(b)(1), which requires that those disqualification periods begin immediately. Upon notice of a suit against it in State court, the NCDHR is required pursuant to 7 C.F.R. \u00a7 272.4(e) to notify the United States Department of Agriculture (\u201cUSDA\u201d) to afford the USDA an opportunity to seek removal of the case to federal court. When the NCDHR fails to properly notify the USDA, as it did here, the NCDHR is not entitled to any further federal contribution for any amount awarded in the State court action. 7 C.F.R. \u00a7 276.2(b)(5)(ii).\nThe case remained in State court and both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court heard the parties\u2019 motions on 4 November 1991, and on 10 January 1992, granted defendant NCDHR\u2019s motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff\u2019s motion. On appeal, this Court reversed the trial court and, on 20 April 1993, issued an opinion holding that USDA regulation 7 C.F.R. \u00a7 273.16(e)(8)(iii), which allowed postponement of the food stamp disqualification period, impermissibly conflicted with the Food Stamp Act. Anderson v. N.C. Dept, of Human Resources, 109 N.C. App. 680, 428 S.E.2d 267 (1993) (\u2018Anderson /\u201d). There was no appeal from this Court of Appeals decision.\nThereafter, the NCDHR applied Anderson I only to plaintiff and failed to apply the rule announced in Anderson I to all others similarly situated. In response, plaintiff filed a rulemaking petition pursuant to G.S. 150B-20(a) seeking the adoption of a proposed rule which would adopt the Anderson I holding. After this petition was denied, plaintiff filed a class action complaint in Guilford County Superior Court on 7 January 1994 seeking judicial review of the denial of her rulemaking petition. Plaintiff\u2019s complaint also sought an injunction to ensure the NCDHR\u2019s future compliance with Anderson I and other opinions of the courts of this State.\nSpecifically, plaintiff\u2019s complaint requested, inter alia, that the court:\n1. Reverse the defendant\u2019s December 8, 1993 final agency decision and order it to adopt in its state regulations and Food Stamp Manual the rule requested by Plaintiffs in their Petition for Rule Making.\n2. Issue a mandatory injunction requiring Defendant to reopen the cases of all class members as of the April 20, 1993 date of the filing of the decision in Anderson, supra, and issue the food stamps that they should have received had their disqualification periods commenced immediately.\n3. Issue a Declaratory Judgment under G.S. \u00a7 1-253 that the Defendant is required to comply with the principles established in the decision in Anderson, supra, in subsequent cases involving similar material facts arising before the agency.\nDefendant NCDHR filed its answer to plaintiff\u2019s complaint on 9 February 1994, and at that time notified the Secretary of Agriculture. On 10 March 1994, the Secretary of Agriculture filed a motion to intervene, which was granted on 6 April 1994 after the trial court determined that the USDA\u2019s interests were not adequately protected by the existing parties.\nIn anticipation of the trial court granting his motion to intervene, the Secretary of Agriculture filed an answer on 31 March 1994. The Secretary\u2019s answer included a motion to dismiss alleging that plaintiff\u2019s suit failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Thereafter, on 13 April 1994, the Secretary filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina seeking removal of the suit to federal court. Plaintiff Sherry D. Thomas then moved the federal court to intervene and join Edith Anderson as a named plaintiff in the case. On 7 July 1994, the federal district court substituted plaintiff Sherry D. Thomas for Edith Anderson as named plaintiff, and on 3 May 1995, the federal district court remanded the case to the State Superior Court after concluding that only the State courts had jurisdiction to enforce their own orders. Thomas v. N.C. Dept, of Human Resources, 898 F. Supp. 315 (M.D. N.C. 1995).\nOn 3 August 1995, plaintiff filed a motion to certify a class and a motion for summary judgment against defendant NCDHR. On 15 September 1995, defendant Secretary filed a motion for summary judgment and, three days later, defendant NCDHR filed a motion to dismiss. Without ruling on plaintiffs motion to certify a class, the trial court denied plaintiff\u2019s motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Secretary and dismissed plaintiff\u2019s claims against defendant NCDHR on 4 October 1995.\nPlaintiff appeals.\nCentral Carolina Legal Services, Inc., by Stanley B. Sprague, for plaintiff-appellant.\nAttorney General Michael F. Easley, by Special Deputy Attorney General Robert J. Blum and Associate Attorney General Elizabeth L. Oxley, for defendant-appellee North Carolina Department of Human Resources." }, "file_name": "0698-01", "first_page_order": 736, "last_page_order": 751 }