House Bill 1188 would prohibit city, county, local, and state law enforcement agencies in North Carolina from entering into contracts with the federal government, federal agencies, or private corporations to house or detain noncitizens in locked facilities for civil immigration custody. It also bars those agencies from maintaining facilities specifically used to detain noncitizens for civil immigration purposes. The bill defines “immigration detention facility” broadly to include facilities used for detention under the authority of DHS, ICE, or CBP.
In addition to restricting detention contracts and facilities, the bill directs the Department of Public Safety to collect and report annual data to the General Assembly on immigration detention facilities, including detainee demographics, pending charges, asylum or citizenship cases, detention location, and release or deportation information. The bill appropriates $50,000 in nonrecurring General Fund money to DPS for administrative implementation and sets an effective date of December 1, 2026.
If enacted, HB1188 would change North Carolina law by creating a new statutory restriction in Chapter 15A limiting the role of state and local law enforcement in civil immigration detention. It would prevent public agencies from contracting for or operating locked detention facilities for noncitizens in civil immigration custody, potentially affecting existing or planned agreements with federal agencies or private detention operators. It would also impose a new reporting duty on DPS and create a modest state appropriation to support implementation.
The available record shows no committee transcript, floor debate, or vote history, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from legislative discussion. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a policy preference for limiting local and state participation in immigration detention while increasing transparency through reporting. Because the bill has only been referred to committee, its overall political reception cannot be determined from the provided materials.
The main point of contention is likely to be whether North Carolina should prohibit local and state agencies from contracting with federal immigration authorities or private companies to detain noncitizens for civil immigration purposes. Supporters would likely view the bill as a way to reduce involvement in immigration enforcement and improve oversight, while opponents may argue it restricts cooperation with federal immigration authorities, could affect public safety or jail operations, and may impose administrative burdens on DPS and local agencies. The reporting requirements and the use of state funds for implementation may also draw scrutiny.