House Bill 78 would prohibit North Carolina criminal justice agencies, sheriff’s offices, criminal justice officers, and justice officers from assisting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in certain immigration enforcement activities at places of religious worship, elementary and secondary schools, and hospitals. The bill specifically bars assistance with apprehending or arresting people for alleged immigration violations and with serving removal warrants in those locations.
The bill also voids any existing or future agreement, memorandum, or contract with ICE to the extent it would require prohibited conduct in those protected locations. It directs the Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission and the Sheriffs’ Education and Training Standards Commission to adopt rules consistent with the new law, and it makes willful violations by officers grounds for suspension, revocation, or denial of certification. The bill preserves local and state law enforcement authority to enforce North Carolina law otherwise authorized by law.
Impact
H78 would add a new section to Chapter 17F of the North Carolina General Statutes, creating a statewide restriction on cooperation with federal immigration enforcement in specified sensitive locations. It would affect criminal justice agencies, sheriff’s offices, and individual officers by limiting when they may assist ICE and by exposing officers to professional discipline for willful violations. It would also invalidate conflicting ICE-related agreements to the extent they require prohibited conduct and require state training standards commissions to implement rules.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the bill appears to be framed as a protective measure for religious institutions, schools, and hospitals. The sponsor list and title suggest support from lawmakers favoring limits on local participation in federal immigration enforcement. No opposing or supporting testimony is included, so the broader legislative sentiment cannot be measured from the provided record, but the measure is clearly presented in a policy area that often draws strong views on both immigration enforcement and sensitive-location protections.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely whether state and local law enforcement should be allowed to cooperate with ICE in sensitive locations, balancing immigration enforcement against concerns about access to worship, education, and medical care. Supporters would likely emphasize protecting vulnerable communities and preserving trust in schools, churches, and hospitals, while opponents may argue the bill interferes with federal immigration enforcement and limits law enforcement discretion. Another possible point of dispute is the bill’s disciplinary provision, which makes willful violations grounds for certification action against officers.