Kinston Men Lose Final Appeal in Racial Discrimination Case Over Condemned Properties

RALEIGH, N.C. — Two Black property owners in Kinston have lost their final legal challenge over the city’s decision to condemn their properties, after the North Carolina Supreme Court declined to review their racial discrimination case.

Joseph Askew and Curtis Washington claimed that the City of Kinston unlawfully condemned three of their properties in 2017 based on a racially discriminatory process. But their case came to an end in June 2025, when the state’s high court allowed Kinston’s motion to dismiss the men’s appeal and declined to reconsider a lower court ruling against them.

Long Legal Battle Ends

The case, Askew v. City of Kinston, had already seen multiple reversals and rulings from both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. In June 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that Askew and Washington were entitled to another review of their claims under the North Carolina Constitution.

But the Court of Appeals later affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of the case, ruling that Askew and Washington had access to “adequate state law remedies” and thus could not proceed with direct constitutional claims under a legal doctrine known as Corum v. University of North Carolina.

The Supreme Court’s petitions list released on a Friday in June 2025 confirmed that justices declined to review that ruling, siding with the city’s argument that the appeal had been filed one day too late.

Disputed Claims of Discrimination

Askew and Washington argued that Kinston's condemnation decisions violated their rights to due process and equal protection under Article I, Section 19 of the state Constitution. Their lawsuit accused the city of targeting properties for demolition based on racially biased criteria.

Kinston officials maintained that the plaintiffs could have used the administrative process to challenge the condemnations, including by petitioning the superior court for relief. In its 2024 opinion, the Court of Appeals concluded that this administrative remedy was sufficient.

If plaintiffs had proven that the city’s decisions "were impermissibly discriminatory, the superior court could have remanded the case with an order to direct the council to implement a nondiscriminatory process for selecting properties for condemnation," wrote Appeals Court Judge Allegra Collins. Judges John Arrowood and Michael Stading joined in the opinion.

Split Between Courts

The Supreme Court had previously criticized that line of reasoning. In her June 2024 opinion, Justice Anita Earls wrote that the appellate court improperly treated administrative exhaustion as a requirement for the court to hear Corum claims.

“Exhaustion of administrative remedies does not dictate jurisdiction over Corum claims,” Earls wrote, noting that such authority flows from the Constitution itself.

Earls distinguished between the plaintiffs’ two claims — one for due process and another for equal protection — and argued that only the due process claim could have been addressed by stopping the demolitions.

The equal protection claim, she explained, centered not on the outcome of the city’s actions but on how the city allegedly discriminated in selecting properties.

Final Ruling Stands

Despite the earlier victory at the Supreme Court, the Appeals Court upheld the dismissal of both claims upon review, finding the administrative remedies to be adequate. The Supreme Court’s decision not to take the case again means that ruling will stand.

In an October 2024 petition, the plaintiffs' attorney, Ralph Bryant, criticized the Appeals Court for reissuing the same decision previously reversed by the Supreme Court. But the high court declined to intervene further.

The outcome leaves Askew and Washington without further legal recourse, ending a yearslong battle over what they argued was a discriminatory practice that affected not only their properties but the fairness of Kinston’s condemnation process.