Riggs motions seeks recusal of Court of Appeals Judge, full en banc hearing
The legal fight in the NC Supreme Court race between Democrat Allision Riggs and Republican Jefferson Griffin continues
The still unresolved NC Supreme Court race between Democrat Associate Justice Allison Riggs and Republican Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin saw new motions filed this week by the attorneys for the Riggs campaign.
The last major update in the legal battle earlier this month included a Wake County Superior Court judge siding with the NC State Board of Elections (NCSBE) in their dismissals of Griffin’s elections challenges.
Read about that turn of events below, as well as the timeline of the legal case to date:
Griffin filed an appeal of the Wake Superior Court ruling with the NC State Court of Appeals on Feb. 11. The NCSBE countered the next day, filing a motion to expedite the case directly to the NC Supreme Court.
Here are the series of events that followed Griffin’s appeal":
Feb.13, 2025: Riggs’ attorneys file response to Griffin’s motion for an appeal to the NC Court of Appeals. NC Court of Appeals issues unanimous order on expediting the case with strict deadlines.
Feb. 17: NCSBE filed petition for NC Supreme Court discretionary review, bypassing the NC Court of Appeals.
Feb. 18: Attorneys for Riggs file motion in support of NCSBE petition.
Feb. 19: Griffin files a response to the NCSBE attempting to bypass the NC Court of Appeals.
Feb. 20: NC Supreme Court rejects petition for discretionary review and bypass of NC Court of Appeals. Two justices dissented; Dietz and Earls. The order sends the case to a three-judge court of appeals panel. If the Court of Appeals decide in favor of Griffin, that decision will likely be appealed back to the Supreme Court.
That brings us up to speed with the motions filed by Riggs’ attorneys this week on Feb. 25. The first motion was a request for an en banc hearing by the NC Court of Appeals.
An en banc hearing is one in which a full court body hears a case. In this situation, instead of a three-judge panel, Riggs’ attorneys want the full Court of Appeals involved. There are 15 judges currently on that court including Griffin who won’t take part in the proceedings for obvious reasons.
Riggs’ attorneys filed a separate second motion for the recusal of NC Court of Appeals Judge Tom Murry, citing a $5,000 donation Murry’s campaign committee made to the Griffin campaign’s legal defense fund.
More To The Story
Riggs’ recusal request is not the first in the battle over the Supreme Court seat.
Last year, Griffin’s attorneys requested NCSBE member Siobhan Millen to recuse herself from participating in the decision of Griffin’s three election protest cases.
The reason for that recusal was Millen’s husband, Pressley Millen, had been the main attorney for Riggs during her campaign. I was the first to uncover that fact while reporting for North State Journal on an ethics complaint lodged against Riggs prior to the November 2024 election.
The ethics complaint involved an accusation Riggs’ ads violate the N.C. Judicial Code of Conduct that outlines judges cannot take positions on topics that may come before the court.
In a web ad called “Families like mine,” Riggs implies Griffin could be a deciding judge on an abortion ban that doesn’t currently exist. She also tied Griffin to former Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson on the issue.
“Voter guide” mailers sent out by third party supporters had similar “reproductive healthcare” themes. The mailers described Riggs to be pro-personal privacy, pro-abortion rights and pro-individual freedom and painted Griffin as opposed to those issues.
There has been no further update on the ethics complaint’s status as such items are typically kept confidential until their conclusion.
Case filings reference in this article can be found under “25-181 : Griffin v. N.C. State Bd. of Elections” on the NC appellate courts website.