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 with immigration enforcement activities in three sensitive locations: 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 declares void any current or future agreement with ICE to the extent it would require prohibited conduct, and it directs the state’s criminal justice and sheriffs’ training standards commissions to adopt rules consistent with the new law. It would take effect immediately upon becoming law and apply to assistance provided on or after that date. The measure does not prevent state or local officers from enforcing North Carolina law where otherwise authorized.
HB78 would add a new section to Chapter 17F of the General Statutes, creating a state-level 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 their ability to assist ICE in those settings and by exposing willful violations to possible certification consequences under Chapters 17C and 17E. It would also require the Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission and the Sheriffs’ Education and Training Standards Commission to adopt implementing rules.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the measure appears to be framed as a protective, public-safety-oriented proposal focused on limiting immigration enforcement in places where vulnerable populations gather. The sponsors’ framing suggests support for creating “safe zones” at churches, schools, and hospitals, while the lack of recorded opposition or vote history in the provided materials means no formal sentiment can be measured from legislative action. Overall, the bill reads as a policy choice to restrict local participation in federal immigration enforcement rather than a broad immigration enforcement measure.
The main point of contention is likely the restriction on local law enforcement cooperation with ICE, especially in relation to federal immigration enforcement and existing interagency agreements. Supporters would view the bill as protecting access to worship, education, and healthcare without fear of immigration-related intervention, while opponents may argue it interferes with law enforcement cooperation, public safety, or federal immigration operations. Another potential issue is the bill’s use of certification penalties for willful violations, which could be seen as a strong enforcement mechanism for officers and agencies.