Richard Dietz
Republican | North Carolina
Candidate Profile*
Leans Originalist
BIOGRAPHY
Name
Richard Dietz
Party
Republican
Election Year
2022
Election
General
Race
Supreme Court Justice, Seat 3
Incumbent
No
Links
EDUCATION
Shippensburg University, Shippensburg, B.S.B.A., 1999
Wake Forest University School of Law, Winston-Salem, J.D., 2002
Duke University School of Law, Durham, LL.M., 2020
WORK & MILITARY
Candidate did not provide
AFFILIATIONS
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES HELD
Judge, North Carolina Court of Appeals, 8
POLITICAL OFFICES SOUGHT
Candidate did not provide
ENDORSEMENTS*
CONSERVATIVE (8)
*National Rifle Association (NRA) PVF; *North Carolina Values Coalition; Conservative Coalition of North Carolina; Education First Alliance NC; Durham County Republican Party
OTHER (2)
*North Carolina Fraternal Order of Police; *North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys
SELECTED CONTRIBUTIONS
CONSERVATIVE
GIVEN BY CANDIDATE (14)
Chad Barefoot (2014); Dan Forest (2012); David Rouzer (2014); George Holding (2014); Local, County, and District Republican Organizations (2016)
RECEIVED BY CANDIDATE (14)
David Curtis (2016); David Rouzer (2016); Dennis Riddell (2016); Gary Clemmons (2021); Hunter Murphy (2016)
LIBERAL
GIVEN BY CANDIDATE (0)
RECEIVED BY CANDIDATE (3)
Gray Styers (2016); North Carolina Advocates for Justice (2016); Sierra Club (2016)
OTHER INFORMATION
Judge Dietz has served on the North Carolina Court of Appeals since 2014.
Notable Cases:
- Vaitovas v. City of Greenville (2022): Wrote majority opinion. Held that a law governing automated traffic signal cameras (present only in some cities in NC) did not violate N.C. Const. art. II § 24(1)(a), which prohibits "local" laws "[r]elating to health, sanitation, and abatement of nuisances" because the precedent of City of Asheville v. State (2016) limited the phrase "relating to" to laws with a "material" connection to health and not those with a "tangential or incidental connection" (1-2). Noted that the plaintiff did not challenge the statute that authorized Greenville to use the cameras, but rather a law governing the city's ability to lease the cameras (2). Held that the challenged act did not shift responsibility for the program and did not change the health-related aspects of the program. Held that whether the underlying statute authorizing the cameras was unconstitutional was not before the court (3). Said that Vaitovas' reference to public statements by city officials did not prove that the purpose of the statute was health related because "what individual legislators think about the purpose of a statute is rarely (if ever) helpful in interpreting the intent of the General Assembly as a whole. And what local officials think about a statute is even less so" (9). Held that the challenged law did not materially affect health because it neither changed who was responsible for the cameras nor how the cameras operated (10).
-
State v. Austin (2021): Wrote majority opinion. Case involved a woman who killed a man after he entered her property and refused to leave. The victim begged to be "let go" after one shot had gone off, but defendant shot and killed him (1-2). Held that the trial court did not err in its decision to not resolve the castle doctrine defense pre-trial because it deemed that the castle defense's applicability was for the jury to decide (2). Trial court properly denied a motion to dismiss because the State presented sufficient evidence that castle defense did not apply in the situation (2). Held that the court properly instructed the jury on castle doctrine (2). Noted that plaintiff's pre-trial claim turned on the meaning of "immunity" in the castle doctrine statute. Held that immunity had multiple meanings and that plaintiff's preferred meaning was not indicated by the context of the statute because that type of immunity is referred to by a specific wording in numerous other statutes (6-7). Regarding denying the motion to dismiss, the Court noted that evidence in heard in the light most favorable to the State (9). Statute provides five situations where castle defense does not apply (11). The NC Supreme Court precedent of State v. Cook held that those five situations were not exhaustive, and that castle defense could be decided by the jury if “the State presents substantial evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude that a defendant did not have a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm” (12). Therefore, the trial court did not err, since the State met that burden (13). Held that the jury instruction was not improper because the Court accurately stated the law despite the State’s alleged waiver of Cook’s holding.
- State v. Lance (2021): Wrote majority opinion. Rejected defendant’s argument that State could not prove that she burned down the “dwelling of another person” because, despite Lance’s mother’s alleged conspiracy with her to burn the house down, there was no evidence that Lance’s mother knew the time or the method of starting the fire (1-2). Held that the trial court did not err in admitting the State’s fire investigation expert’s testimony or in providing jury instructions (2). Vacated the trial court’s award of restitution and remanded (2). Noted that the courts had never determined whether a fellow conspirator qualified as “another person,” and held there was sufficient evidence that Lance’s mother did (7). Elements of the offense and existing precedent also provided no exception for co-conspirators (7). State v. Eubanks held that a house is the “dwelling house of another” if someone other than the defendant lives there (8). Noted that in Eubanks, the defendant warned other inhabitants of the upcoming fire (8). Held that State v. Ward did not support defendant because the other person had permanently abandoned the home (9). Held that the restitution amount was invalid because the prosecutor did not provide any testimony or documents to support its request of $40,000, which is prohibited by State v. Shelton (2004).
Other info:
-
Dietz said in his announcement video said that these days "too many people think that the [opening line of the Constitution] is 'we the judges'" and that "a judge's role is to defend the Constitution, to protect the rule of law, and not to legislate from the bench"
-
Judge Dietz spoke on the North Carolina Constitution's protections for economic liberty at an event hosted by the John Locke Foundation. This lecture was based on his article that was published in the Elon Law Review.
Carolina Journal described Dietz as "a conservative intellectual with a record of conservative jurisprudence, but with a unique ability to develop consensus on the court.
QUESTIONNAIRE
JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY
Justices should not interpret the federal and state constitutions as living documents, but should use a textualist and originalist approach to interpretation.
Strongly Agree
What is the proper use of legislative history in interpreting statutory law?
My approach to interpreting written laws focuses on the text. I have observed in many of my opinions that the intent of a statute is derived from the text enacted by the legislative body, not the views of individual legislators during debate. One recent example is Vaitovas v. City of Greenville, 2022-NCCOA-169, where I authored an opinion explaining that “what individual legislators think about the purpose of a statute is rarely (if ever) helpful in interpreting the intent of the General Assembly as a whole.”
Which current or past U.S. Supreme Court justice best reflects your judicial philosophy?
There is no single justice I can point to on every aspect of judicial philosophy. I share Chief Justice Rehnquist’s views about the importance of judicial restraint. Justice Gorsuch has written about his approach to constitutional theory and it fits my focus on the importance of “We the People” when examining constitutional rights. When interpreting statutes, I often use Justice Scalia’s book Reading Law which collects many principles of statutory construction.
How should a court address the balance between public health and individual freedoms in the time of a pandemic?
I do not comment on particular subjects that could come before the courts and refer to my responses concerning my judicial philosophy and approach to judging. I have written a number of articles about individual liberty and economic liberty in our State constitution. My article “Economic liberty must be a priority for NC courts” in Carolina Journal collects some of my research in this area.
In light of the case Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include a prohibition on sexual-orientation discrimination, which justice’s opinion most closely aligns with your own opinion?
I do not comment on particular subjects that could come before the courts and refer to my responses concerning my judicial philosophy and approach to judging.
What role (if any) does a judge have in maintaining the separation of church and state?
I do not comment on particular subjects that could come before the courts and refer to my responses concerning my judicial philosophy and approach to judging.
Religious liberty is at risk in the United States and deserves the highest level of protection in the law.
Choose not to answer
When should a judge overturn past court decisions?
I am doctrinal and believe the law should be stable so that the public can know the law. But judges are not angels and can make mistakes. When a decision is demonstrably wrong it should be overturned and there are many examples in our nation’s history of judicial decisions that were rightly overturned.
How should a judge determine which rights are protected by the Constitution even though they are not specifically mentioned?
I focus on the meaning of constitutional provisions to the people who ratified them and the importance of judicial restraint in preserving the integrity of the judicial branch.
What legal principles should a court consider when evaluating parents’ objection to their child obtaining medical procedures or drugs designed to affirm the child’s desired gender?
I do not comment on particular subjects that could come before the courts and refer to my responses concerning my judicial philosophy and approach to judging.
What principles should guide a court’s analysis of whether your state’s constitution gives terminally ill patients a right to assisted suicide?
I do not comment on particular subjects that could come before the courts and refer to my responses concerning my judicial philosophy and approach to judging.
Would you describe your judicial philosophy as originalist, living constitutionalist, or something else?
Observers of my judicial decisions describe me as an originalist because I focus on the meaning of constitutional provisions to the people who ratified them. But I also consider doctrine and the importance of judicial restraint in preserving the integrity of the judicial branch.
ABOUT YOU
What education or experience qualifies you to hold the office for which you seek election?
I am running for the open seat of a retiring justice on the N.C. Supreme Court. I am, by far, the most qualified candidate for the seat. I am from a small-town mountain family and was the first in my family to attend college. I became interested in the law in college and, through hard work, graduated first in my class from Wake Forest University School of Law and later earned a master’s degree in judicial studies from Duke University. As a lawyer, I became one of our State’s most accomplished experts in appeals. I have personally argued in the U.S. Supreme Court—something only a handful of lawyers in the State have ever done—and handled appeals in courts across the nation, ranging from billion-dollar legal disputes to work for low-income families. I am the only candidate who is a board-certified specialist in appeals. For the last eight years, I have served as a judge on the N.C. Court of Appeals where I built a reputation as a fair, thoughtful judge whose decisions are easy for the public to read and understand. My work as an appellate judge, and my efforts to improve our justice system, earned me a number of awards including the 2015 Leader in the Law award and the 2019 Citizen Lawyer award.
Why should the voters choose you?
The theme of my campaign is “Leadership for our Courts.” Here’s what that means: First, leadership means having the skills to do the work of a Supreme Court justice. My extensive background in appeals and constitutional law have prepared me to serve on our State’s highest court. Second, leadership means having the character and temperament to work on the most important legal issues in our State. Too many judges seek to serve on our Supreme Court because they are on a political mission. I understand that our constitutional rights come from We the People, not we the judges. As a Supreme Court justice, I will help steer our State’s highest court to its proper role—defending our constitutional rights, protecting the rule of law, and helping people resolve their legal disputes fairly. Finally, leadership means going beyond the courtroom to help our State. When the pandemic hit, I stepped up—creating an online constitutional academy for high school students stuck at home and organizing a month-long summer seminar for law students who lost their internships. No other judge can match my record of finding creative solutions to the challenges within our justice system. I’ll bring this leadership to the Supreme Court.
I voted in these primaries and general elections:
2012 Republican Primary 2012 General Election 2014 Republican Primary 2014 General Election 2016 Republican Primary 2016 General Election 2018 General Election 2020 Republican Primary 2020 General Election
VALUES
I agree with Critical Race Theory (CRT) which asserts that the institutions in the United States are fundamentally racist.
Choose not to answer
Judeo-Christian values established a framework of morality that is necessary for our system of limited government.
Choose not to answer
Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.
I am a Lutheran and my faith, and God’s message of love and hope for all people, plays a huge role in my personal life.
What types of pro bono work have you done?
Judges are not permitted to engage in the practice of law so I have not done any pro bono legal work since I joined the Court of Appeals in 2014. As a lawyer, I handled a number of pro bono cases in the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts around the country. Some examples are Kowalski v. Berkeley County Schools (11-461, U.S. Sup. Ct.), a First Amendment student speech case where I represented a student disciplined for speech on social media after school hours, and Abramski v United States (12-1493, U.S. Sup. Ct.), where I represented a former law enforcement officer in a case concerning gun owner rights.
