American Family Association Action (AFA Action), is a non-profit 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to advancing biblical, family values in society and government by educating and influencing public policy. AFA Action is also the Governmental Affairs Affiliate of American Family Association (AFA).
Dean of the Highpoint University School of Law
Click below to download more research data for Dean Mark Martin.
* You have successfully registered your email address.
Martin previously served as Dean of Regent University School of Law.[1] Regent University is a private Christian institution.[2] Martin has remarked that when he was 23 years old and entering law school, he really wanted to enter the ministry.[3] Martin is the founding dean of the law school at High Point University. The university is affiliated with the United Methodist Church.[4] Martin is married to Kym Martin with whom he has five children.[5]
Martin has commented about Eric Liddell, Olympic gold medalist and missionary to China, “He (Liddell) has shown us that Christians can remain faithful to their convictions and be successful in their lives.”[6] In a speech to Regent law students, Martin added that God’s plan, “will not always be the one that everyone accepts or agrees with.”[7] He also stated, “Like Eric Liddell, with God’s help, we will have a great race.”[8]
Martin co-wrote an article published on the website of Regent Law’s Robertson Center for Constitutional Law which explained the role of the Christian attorney: “The Place of Christianity in Constitutional Law[.] Such an endeavor prompts the question: How should a Christian think about constitutional law? To begin, we approach this question with humility. Christianity is not ‘a club to be wielded against those who do not share’ that faith. Instead, Christians are called upon to recognize our own limitations and shortcomings. Although our faith does not compel a single legal or political philosophy, certain aspects of Christian belief inform our views of constitutional law. As discussed above, man is selfish and imperfect. That makes us inherently skeptical of concentrated power. History well illustrates concentrated power’s destructive impact on liberty. We should distrust even those who claim that they can ‘bring about the Kingdom of Heaven on this earth through our political efforts’ and know that ‘[i]f we allow our governments to try, the result will be tyranny.”[9]
[1] About the Founding Dean, High Point Univ., https://www.highpoint.edu/law/mark-martin/.
[2] About Regent, Regent Univ., https://www.regent.edu/about-regent/.
[3] Regent University School of Law Dean Martin, Regent Univ., YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7dA9XDYoDA at 0:07.
[4] Bob Friedman, Mark Martin: “I’ve Always Been a Builder,” Attorney at Law Magazine, https://attorneyatlawmagazine.com/stories/attorney-feature/mark-martin.
[5] Retired NC Chief Justice Mark Martin Installed as Regent’s New Law Dean, Impact 1, 1 (Spring 2019), https://issuu.com/regentuniversity/docs/spring2019_impact_regent.
[6] Retired NC Chief Justice Mark Martin Installed as Regent’s New Law Dean, Impact 1, 2-3 (Spring 2019), https://issuu.com/regentuniversity/docs/spring2019_impact_regent.
[7] Retired NC Chief Justice Mark Martin Installed as Regent’s New Law Dean, Impact 1, 2-3 (Spring 2019), https://issuu.com/regentuniversity/docs/spring2019_impact_regent.
[8] Retired NC Chief Justice Mark Martin Installed as Regent’s New Law Dean, Impact 1, 2-3 (Spring 2019), https://issuu.com/regentuniversity/docs/spring2019_impact_regent.
[9] Mark D. Martin, Bradley J. Lingo, & Michael Schietzelt, Preserving A Constitution Designed For A Moral And Religious People, Regent U., Robertson Center for Const. L. (Aug. 3, 2020), https://constitutionallaw.regent.edu/preserving-a-constitution-designed-for-a-moral-and-religious-people/ (bold and emphasis added).
Martin has utilized statutory construction that effectuates the will of the legislature in his decisions. Martin has written, “The primary goal of statutory construction is to give effect to the intent of the legislature. Bowers v. City of High Point, 339 N.C. 413, 419, 451 S.E.2d 284, 289 (1994). ‘The will of the legislature ‘must be found from the [plain] language of the act, its legislative history and the circumstances surrounding its adoption which throw light upon the evil sought to be remedied.’’ State v. Oliver, 343 N.C. 202, 211, 470 S.E.2d 16, 22 (1996) (quoting State ex rel. N.C. Milk Comm'n v. National Food Stores, 270 N.C. 323, 332, 154 S.E.2d 548, 555 (1967)). In any event, where a statute is susceptible to two constructions, one constitutional and the other unconstitutional, the former will be adopted. In re Arthur, 291 N.C. 640, 642, 231 S.E.2d 614, 616 (1977).”[10] Martin wrote a dissent in a case where the majority seemed to take a political side on an election law issue. In his dissent, Martin wrote emphatically about the proper, neutral role of the courts. Martin wrote, “It is beyond question that the courts should have ‘neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment.’ United States v. Hatter, 532 U.S. 557, 568, 121 S.Ct. 1782, 1791, 149 L.Ed.2d 820 (2001) (quoting The Federalist 78, at 465 (Alexander Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961)). ‘Our constitutionally assigned role is limited to a determination of whether the legislation is plainly and clearly prohibited by the constitution.’[citations omitted].”[11] At a panel at the American Constitution Society, Chief Justice Martin explained the proper role of judges. He stated, “Judges should not be behaving like legislative and executive branch officers. They appropriately place a platform before the voters and ask the voters to join with them in carrying out that platform. That should not be the case with judges if what we expect of judges is to take an oath to uphold the constitution, the laws, and to promote the values of fairness, impartiality, and independence. All of that necessary for the rule of law.”[12]
[10] Kaplan v. Prolife Action League of Greensboro, 123 N.C. App. 720, 723–24, 475 S.E.2d 247, 250–51 (1996), aff'd, 347 N.C. 342, 493 S.E.2d 416 (1997). Link here (bold and emphasis added).
[11] Cooper v. Berger, 370 N.C. 392, 426–27, 809 S.E.2d 98, 119 (2018). Link here (bold and emphasis added).
[12] Judicial Independence in Peril?, American Constitution Society (Aug. 25, 2011), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZmWrCBs4Q0, at 21:04-21:35 (bold and emphasis added).
In State of North Carolina v. Yencer, Martin held that a private, religious university hiring police officers pursuant to the state’s Campus Police Act did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The lower Court of Appeals held that “‘Davidson College is a religious institution for the purposes of the Establishment Clause.’ State v. Yencer, 206 N.C.App. 552, ––––, 696 S.E.2d 875, 879 (2010). The court held that the Campus Police Act granted an unconstitutional delegation of discretionary power to a religious institution. at ––––, 696 S.E.2d at 879.”[13] Martin wrote, “It is well established that ‘religious institutions need not be quarantined from public benefits that are neutrally available to all.’ Roemer v. Bd. of Pub. Works, 426 U.S. 736, 746, 96 S.Ct. 2337, 2344, 49 L.Ed.2d 179 (1976) (Blackmun, J.) (plurality opinion).[14] Martin articulated the following understanding of the Establishment Clause: “‘The purposes of the First Amendment guarantees relating to religion were twofold: to foreclose state interference with the practice of religious faiths, and to foreclose the establishment of a state religion familiar in other 18th-century ’Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116, 122, 103 S.Ct. 505, 510, 74 L.Ed.2d 297 (1982).”[15] Martin then applied the Lemon test and held the state Act did not offend the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.[16]
[13] State v. Yencer, 365 N.C. 292, 294, 718 S.E.2d 615, 616 (2011). Link here.
[14] State v. Yencer, 365 N.C. 292, 294, 718 S.E.2d 615, 617 (2011). Link here (bold and emphasis added).
[15] State v. Yencer, 365 N.C. 292, 294, 718 S.E.2d 615, 617 (2011). Link here (bold and emphasis added).
[16] State v. Yencer, 365 N.C. 292, 294, 718 S.E.2d 615, 617 (2011). Link here (bold and emphasis added).
In Hart v. State, Chief Justice Martin dismissed a claim raised by taxpayers challenging a school funding scheme that distributed taxpayer money to religious schools. In his majority opinion, Martin wrote: “In short, plaintiffs contend that the Opportunity Scholarship Program accomplishes no public purpose because it allows funding for educational scholarships to schools that may discriminate on the basis of religion. Again, our analysis of the public purpose doctrine made clear that Article I, Section 19, like Article I, Section 15, has no effect on our disposition with respect to plaintiffs' public purpose claim. With respect to the independent applicability of Article I, Section 19 as a stand-alone claim, defendants have maintained throughout this litigation that such a claim is not justiciable in this case because plaintiffs, as taxpayers of the state, lack standing. Specifically, defendants contend that plaintiffs have suffered no injury in fact because they are not in the class of persons against which the program allegedly discriminates. We agree and therefore hold that plaintiffs' Article I, Section 19 claim must be dismissed.”[17] As Dean of Regent University School of Law, Chief Justice Martin integrated and understood the relationship between religion and legal systems. A Regent Law Review article co-written by Chief Justice Martin states: “President John Adams once observed, ‘Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.’ He wasn’t the only Founding Father to hold this view. Indeed, James Madison wrote that our Constitution requires ‘sufficient virtue among men for self-government,’ otherwise, ‘nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.’”[18] Martin co-wrote an article published on the website of Regent Law’s Robertson Center for Constitutional Law which explained the role of the Christian attorney: “The Place of Christianity in Constitutional Law[.] Such an endeavor prompts the question: How should a Christian think about constitutional law? To begin, we approach this question with humility. Christianity is not ‘a club to be wielded against those who do not share’ that faith. Instead, Christians are called upon to recognize our own limitations and shortcomings. Although our faith does not compel a single legal or political philosophy, certain aspects of Christian belief inform our views of constitutional law. As discussed above, man is selfish and imperfect. That makes us inherently skeptical of concentrated power. History well illustrates concentrated power’s destructive impact on liberty. We should distrust even those who claim that they can ‘bring about the Kingdom of Heaven on this earth through our political efforts’ and know that ‘[i]f we allow our governments to try, the result will be tyranny.’[19] During his time as Dean of Regent Law, Martin also served as Counsel of Record on an amicus brief for the Robertson Center for Constitutional Law in support of petitioners in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, arguing that Employment Division v. Smith should be overruled. The brief stated, “The First Amendment elevates the free exercise of religion above ‘the vicissitudes of political controversy,’ and places it ‘beyond the reach of majorities and officials.’ W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943). Like the other guarantees of the Bill of Rights, it ‘may not be submitted to vote; [it] depend[s] on the outcome of no elections.’ Ibid. Consonant with that wisdom, this Court had subjected to heightened scrutiny any law that substantially burdened religious exercise. This understanding enabled individuals of different backgrounds and faiths to live and work together in a pluralistic society. Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), upset that balance. It uprooted precedent, ignored the fundamental logic of the Free Exercise Clause, and transformed religious exercise into a second-class First Amendment right.”[20] The brief also argued, “Now, CSS must choose between writing home reports that violate deeply held religious tenets or abdicating its duty to provide for needy children. Pet’rs’ Br. 9–11. That’s exactly the sort of dilemma that the Free Exercise Clause was designed to prevent. But instead of finding refuge in the First Amendment, CSS and the children it serves have been left behind as collateral damage in the culture wars. at 11–12.[21]
[17] Hart v. State, 368 N.C. 122, 140, 774 S.E.2d 281, 293–94 (2015). Link here, PDF p. 27-28 (bold and emphasis added).
[18] Mark D. Martin, Bradley J. Lingo & Michael Schietzelt, A Center Dedicated to Preserving a Constitution Designed for a Moral and Religious People, 33 Regent U. L. Rev. 1,1 (2020-2021). Link here (bold and emphasis added).
[19] Mark D. Martin, Bradley J. Lingo, & Michael Schietzelt, Preserving A Constitution Designed For A Moral And Religious People, Regent U., Robertson Center for Const. L. (Aug. 3, 2020), https://constitutionallaw.regent.edu/preserving-a-constitution-designed-for-a-moral-and-religious-people/ (bold and emphasis added).
[20] Brief of Amicus Curiae The Robertson Center For Constitutional Law In Support Of Petitioners, Fulton v. City Of Philadelphia, 2020 WL 3060575 (June 3, 2020). Link here, PDF p. 2 (emphasis added).
[21] Brief of Amicus Curiae The Robertson Center For Constitutional Law In Support Of Petitioners, Fulton v. City Of Philadelphia, 2020 WL 3060575 (June 3, 2020). Link here, PDF p. 29 (emphasis added).
In Kaplan, an abortion clinic attempted to weaponize a North Carolina RICO statute against a pro-life organization for their protests against the clinic. Martin applied the statute appropriately and found the pro-life group innocent of such a violation. Martin disagreed with the plaintiff-doctor’s argument that the protestors denied the use and enjoyment of his home, writing: “[O]ur research has not revealed any jurisdiction which adopts such an expansive definition of “property” under its respective RICO statute. In fact, the only federal circuit court to squarely address the present issue has determined the loss of the use and enjoyment of one's personal residence does not constitute an injury to property recoverable under federal civil RICO. Oscar v. University Students Co–op. Ass'n,965 F.2d 783, 787–788 (9th Cir.), denied, 506 U.S. 1020, 113 S.Ct. 655, 121 L.Ed.2d 581 (1992).”[22]
[22] Kaplan v. Prolife Action League of Greensboro, 123 N.C. App. 720, 726-27, 475 S.E.2d 247 (1996), aff'd, 347 N.C. 342, 493 S.E.2d 416 (1997). Link here.
Chief Justice Martin made positive comments about John W. Smith, the head of North Carolina’s Administrative Office of the Courts, who, during his tenure in this role, threatened to punish state magistrates who refused to preside over same-sex weddings. Martin made the following comments after Smith stepped down: “Judge Smith has navigated our courts through some of the most challenging economic times in our state's history . . .We can all be grateful for his steady leadership, dedicated service and commitment to the administration of justice in North Carolina.”[23]
[23] Director of NC courts system stepping down, WRAL News (Mar. 2, 2015), https://www.wral.com/director-of-nc-courts-system-stepping-down/14485492/.
Martin held a NC law prohibiting firearms in the courthouse to be constitutional pursuant to the General Assembly’s police power. Martin’s opinion stated, “Article I, Section 30 of the North Carolina Constitution provides, in part: ‘A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ....’ N.C. Const. art. I, § 30. However, our Supreme Court has ‘consistently pointed out that the right of individuals to bear arms is not absolute, but is subject to regulation.’ State v. Dawson,272 N.C. 535, 546, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968). Thus, while the right to bear arms ‘“is protected and safeguarded by the Federal and State constitutions,”’ it is also “‘subject to the authority of the General Assembly, in the exercise of the police power, to regulate, but the regulation must be reasonable and not prohibitive, and must bear a fair relation to the preservation of the public peace and safety.’” at 547, 159 S.E.2d at 10 (quoting State v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 579, 107 S.E. 222, 226 (1921) (Allen, J., concurring)).”[24]
[24] State v. Sullivan, 202 N.C. App. 553, 555–56, 691 S.E.2d 417, 419 (2010), writ denied, 367 N.C. 518, 762 S.E.2d 450 (2014). Link here (bold and emphasis added).
A North Carolina school board conducted a secret meeting that should have been made public. The school board claimed that, because there were school board attorneys present, the meeting was justifiably closed due to attorney-client privilege. Martin held that the subject matter of the meeting must be confidential to qualify as a justifiable closed meeting. He did not allow the pre-textual argument of the school board to stand.[25] Martin included in an opinion language from the NC Constitution praising religion, morality, and knowledge as necessaries in—amongst other things—the means of education. Martin wrote, “The promotion of education generally, and educational opportunity in particular, is of paramount public importance to our state. Indeed, borrowing language from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, our constitution preserves the ethic of educational opportunity, declaring that ‘[r]eligion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools, libraries, and the means of educationshall forever be encouraged.’C. Const. art. IX, § 1 (emphasis added).”[26]
[25] H.B.S. Contractors, Inc. v. Cumberland Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 122 N.C. App. 49, 468 S.E.2d 517 (1996). Link here.
[26] Hart v. State, 368 N.C. 122, 138, 774 S.E.2d 281, 292 (2015). Link here, PDF p. 23 (bold and emphasis added, but the phrase “the means of education” is italicized in the opinion).
Chief Martin applied NC precedent when articulating the standard for deference to an agency’s own interpretation of their own rule. Martin wrote, “[A]n administrative agency's interpretation of its own regulation should be accorded due deference unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. Pamlico Marine Co. Inc., v. N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources, 80 N.C.App. 201, 206, 341 S.E.2d 108, 112 (1986).”[27] Martin adjudicated a final agency decision of the North Carolina Department of Human Resources that effectually micro-managed a hospital. Martin stated, “A final agency decision may be reversed if the agency's findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are based on an error of law. N.C.Gen.Stat. § 150B–51(b) (1995).”[28] He continued, “We believe the expansive interpretation proposed by the Department, thereby allowing micro-management over relatively minor capital expenditures, does not effectuate the overriding legislative intent behind the CON [(certificate of need)] process, e.,regulation of major capital expenditures which may adversely impact the cost of health care services to the patient. See N.C.Gen.Stat. §§ 131E–175(1)–(2), (4), (6)–(7) (1994).”[29]
[27] Simonel v. N. Carolina Sch. of Arts, 119 N.C. App. 772, 775, 460 S.E.2d 194, 196 (1995). Link here.
[28] Cape Fear Mem'l Hosp. v. N. Carolina Dep't of Hum. Res., 121 N.C. App. 492, 493, 466 S.E.2d 299, 300 (1996). Link here (bold and emphasis added).
[29] Cape Fear Mem'l Hosp. v. N. Carolina Dep't of Hum. Res., 121 N.C. App. 492, 494, 466 S.E.2d 299, 301 (1996). Link here (bold and emphasis added).
No information has been located on this topic.
Best meets the ten principles of a constitutional judge.
Rating: GreyNeutral. Record is not as fully developed. Cannot be rated as “green” or “red.”
Rating: RedFails to meet the ten principles of a constitutional judge.
AFA Action is a non-profit 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to advancing biblical, family values in society and government by educating and influencing public policy. AFA Action is also the Governmental Affairs Affiliate of American Family Association.