House Bill 1150 would create a new Chapter 99F in the North Carolina General Statutes, titled the “North Carolina Constitutional Rights Act.” The bill establishes a state-law civil cause of action for any person within North Carolina to sue another person acting “under color of law” who deprives them of rights secured by the U.S. Constitution. Available remedies would include compensatory damages, declaratory or injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs for prevailing plaintiffs. The bill sets a three-year statute of limitations and applies to causes of action arising on or after October 1, 2026.
The measure also directs that the new chapter be construed broadly to provide remedies for federal constitutional violations, while preserving existing state and federal claims. It expressly states that it does not authorize suits against the State or waive sovereign immunity for the State or local governments. In addition, the bill appropriates $150,000 in nonrecurring General Fund money to the Department of Justice for public education about the new rights and remedies.
HB1150 would add a new statutory civil-rights remedy under North Carolina law for alleged violations of federal constitutional rights by persons acting under color of law, supplementing existing federal remedies such as 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It would affect potential defendants acting under governmental authority, including federal, state, territorial, or local actors as defined in the bill, while preserving sovereign immunity for the State and local political subdivisions. The bill would also create a new state appropriation for outreach and public education by the Department of Justice.
No committee transcript or recorded vote information is provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or partisan sentiment in the available materials. Based on the bill text, the measure is framed as a rights-protection and access-to-remedy bill, suggesting a pro-civil-liberties rationale. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments in the provided context means overall sentiment cannot be reliably assessed beyond the bill’s stated purpose.
The main potential points of contention are whether North Carolina should create a parallel state cause of action for federal constitutional violations, how broadly “under color of law” should be interpreted, and whether the bill could expand litigation against government-adjacent actors. Another likely issue is the interaction with sovereign immunity and existing federal remedies, since the bill preserves immunity for the State and local governments while still allowing suits against other persons acting under governmental authority. The $150,000 appropriation for public education may also draw scrutiny as a new General Fund expense.