May it please the court. This case is about whether landlords can contract around tenant protection statutes designed to prevent exactly this kind of abuse. The answer under North Carolina law is no. Brown v. Kenir establishes that statutory tenant protections cannot be waved.
The trial court aired in denying relief and this court should reverse. Judge Lanning didn't wait. Miss Booker, your brief cites Booker v. North Carolina extensively. Are you aware that case addresses qualified immunity for state actors, not private landlord tenant disputes?
The question hung in the air. This was it, the moment she'd been preparing for. I'm aware, your honor. Booker held that qualified immunity applies only when the constitutional right violated was not clearly established at the time of the violation.
Here the right to notice under the Fair Housing Act and North Carolina General Statute 42-26 was clearly established in 1988. The underlying principle that clearly established rights cannot be violated under the guise of immunity or waiver applies here. Judge Lanning studied her. You seem very familiar with Booker.
Have you read it carefully? Many times, your honor. The Concurrence in particular. Camille's heart rate picked up slightly.
Why was the judge asking about the concurrence specifically? Yes, your honor. Judge Roland Booker's concurrence addressed the scope of qualified immunity in cases involving procedural violations. He argued for a narrower interpretation than the majority.
And how does that apply here? Judge Booker's concurrence emphasizes that procedural protections exist to check government power. The same principle applies to statutory tenant protections. They exist to check landlord power.
Allowing those protections to be waived undermines their entire purpose. Judge Simmons spoke up. Miss Booker, even if you're right about the notice violation, your client still owes 3 months rent. How does correcting the procedural error help her?
It gives her time, your honor, 30 days notice instead of three. Time to find alternative housing. Time to access social services. Time to avoid becoming homeless.
The statute recognizes that disabled tenants, especially those with limited resources, need that time to avoid irreparable harm. And if we reverse and remand, what happens? The trial court holds the hearing it should have held before the eviction, weighs the evidence, makes findings of fact, follows the law. That's all we're asking for, a fair hearing under the correct legal standard.
Judge Kierney leaned back. Ms. Booker, the trial judge, has been on the bench for over 20 years. He denied your motion. What makes you think he got it wrong?
The question was sharp, challenging her directly. Your honor, respectfully, experience doesn't equal infallibility. The trial court denied relief without findings of fact, without analyzing the statutory requirements, without applying Brown v. Kenir, which is directly on point and binding precedent. The law is the law regardless of who sits on the bench.
Judge Lanning's eyebrow raised slightly. Not many young attorneys spoke that directly about trial judges. The judges asked eight more questions. Camille answered each one, cited cases from memory, distinguished adverse precedent, built her argument brick by brick.
When her time expired, she sat down. Elliot stood for rebuttal. Your honor, Ms. Booker has done an admirable job with this appeal. Her brief is thorough.
Her argument is well researched, but she's asking this court to second-guess the trial judge's discretionary decision based on a misreading of Brown v. Kenir and an inapplicable case about qualified immunity. He paused for effect. And regarding Booker v. North Carolina, if you read Judge Booker's concurrence carefully, which I recommend the court do, you'll find he actually supports the proposition that immunity applies broadly to protect good faith actors from technical violations. That principle extends to landlords acting in good faith under lease agreements.
Camille's pen stopped midnote. Elliot had just cited her father's concurrence, and he'd gotten it completely wrong. Judge Booker's concurrence argued for narrower immunity, not broader. Elliot had either misread it or was deliberately misrepresenting it to the court, but she couldn't speak.
Her time was over. The judges thanked both sides. We'll take the matter under advisement and issue a written opinion within 90 days. Court is adjourned.
Outside the courtroom, Professor Washington caught up with her. You did great in there. Elliot misrepresented my father's concurrence. I caught that.
You think he knows? Knows what? That Judge Booker is your father. Camille shook her head.
No, he would have disclosed it if he knew. Probably would have moved for recusal. So, he just cited it without reading it carefully. Apparently, they walked toward the exit.
Elliot was ahead of them talking to his associates in the hallway. As Camille passed, he turned. "Nice argument, Miss Booker. You've definitely improved since your first appearance."
She stopped. "Thank you." That point about Booker was clever. Using the concurrence to support your position, but you should read the case more carefully.
Judge Booker's actual holding supports immunity, not restriction. I've read it carefully, Mr. Chandler. Well, when you've practiced appellate law as long as I have, you learn to distinguish between what a case says and what advocates want it to say. Camille looked at him.
This moment had been inevitable. From the first secondary screening, the first refused filing, the first dismissive comment. Everything had been building to this. Mr. Chandler, when I see my father next, I'll let him know you think his concurrence was misread.
Elliot's expression froze. Your father, Judge Roland Booker, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, author of Booker v. North Carolina, the case you've been citing to support your position for the past 6 months. The color drained from Elliot's face. Behind him, Alana Reeves stopped mid-sentence, her mouth falling open.
Your Judge Booker is my father. Yes. Camille pulled a document from her bag, her bar application, which she'd brought specifically for this moment. And since we're clarifying things, this is my application to sit for the North Carolina bar exam next month.
One of my references is Justice Sonia Sotomayor. I clerked for her last summer at the Supreme Court. She handed him the application. He took it mechanically, eyes scanning the page.
Elliot's hands trembled slightly as he held the document. Why didn't you disclose this? Disclose what? That my father wrote a case you chose to site.
That's your burden, Mr. Chandler, not mine. You're the one arguing before a court. You're the one who has to check for conflicts. But you you let us think you were just a student.
I am just a student, a third-year law student representing a client through a clinical program. My father's position doesn't change that. The law doesn't change based on whose daughter I am. Professor Washington stepped closer, his presence a quiet reinforcement.
Elliot's jaw worked. This is Judge Hargrove will need to know about this. Judge Hargrove already knows, or he should if he'd done basic conflict checking. My father and Judge Hargrove were classmates at Duke Law, class of 1987.