House Bill 1152 would expand North Carolina’s civil rights enforcement law to create a specific cause of action for people injured during civil immigration enforcement when another person, including a person acting under color of law, violates the U.S. Constitution or the North Carolina Constitution. The bill allows an injured person to sue for the remedies already available under G.S. 99D-1, including injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, court costs, and attorneys’ fees. It also states that, to the maximum extent allowed by the U.S. Constitution, common immunity defenses such as sovereign immunity, official immunity, qualified immunity, and related doctrines would not apply in these cases.
In addition to the civil remedy, the bill appropriates $50,000 in nonrecurring General Fund money to the Office of State Budget and Management to create a downloadable “Know Your Rights” pamphlet. That pamphlet would summarize the rights of immigrants and citizens who encounter immigration enforcement officers and would be posted on state agency websites that coordinate with or work with ICE or CBP. The bill is effective when it becomes law and includes a severability clause.
HB1152 would amend G.S. 99D-1 to add a new immigration-enforcement-specific civil rights claim and to broaden the remedies available against alleged constitutional violations during civil immigration enforcement. It would also attempt to limit the availability of immunity defenses in those lawsuits, potentially increasing legal exposure for individuals and government actors involved in immigration enforcement activities. Separately, it would require state resources to be used for public education materials about rights during immigration encounters and direct those materials to be made available through relevant state websites.
The bill’s text suggests a rights-protection and accountability focus, and its title and provisions frame it as a measure to protect individuals affected by immigration enforcement. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate or bipartisan support/opposition in the available record. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears designed to appeal to advocates for civil liberties and immigrant protections, while likely drawing concern from supporters of immigration enforcement agencies and those wary of expanding litigation against officials.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s expansion of private lawsuits and its effort to limit immunity defenses for defendants involved in immigration enforcement. Supporters would likely emphasize constitutional accountability, access to remedies, and public education about rights; opponents would likely argue that the bill could expose officers, agencies, and possibly local or state actors to increased litigation and interfere with immigration enforcement operations. The appropriation for a rights pamphlet may also draw scrutiny from those opposed to using state funds for immigration-related outreach.