House Bill 86, titled the Citizens' Expungement Clarification of 2025, would bar people who are not legal residents or citizens of the United States or its territories from receiving an expunction of criminal convictions or charges in North Carolina. The bill adds a new section to Article 5 of Chapter 15A of the General Statutes establishing this eligibility restriction and applies it to expunction petitions filed on or after October 1, 2025.
The bill also requires courts, before entering an expunction order, to try to determine whether a petitioner is a legal resident or citizen by asking the petitioner or reviewing relevant documents. If the court cannot determine status, it must query U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The bill includes an exception for certain people who lawfully entered the United States and have filed, or have had filed for them, an immigrant petition.
HB86 would amend North Carolina's expunction laws in Chapter 15A by creating a citizenship or lawful-residency eligibility requirement for expunction relief. It would also impose a new verification process on courts handling expunction petitions, including a required ICE inquiry when status cannot otherwise be determined. The practical effect would be to limit access to expunctions for noncitizens who do not meet the bill's exception and to add an immigration-status screening step to the criminal record expunction process.
No committee debate or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a restrictive approach to expunction eligibility tied to immigration status. The absence of transcripts or votes means the overall legislative sentiment cannot be measured from the provided context.
The main point of contention is likely the bill's exclusion of undocumented immigrants and other noncitizens from expunction eligibility, along with the requirement that courts contact ICE when citizenship or residency cannot be confirmed. Supporters would likely frame the bill as a clarification of eligibility and a public-safety or enforcement measure, while opponents would likely argue it creates unequal access to relief, increases immigration-related screening in state courts, and may discourage eligible petitioners from seeking expunctions. The bill's narrow exception for certain lawful entrants with immigrant petitions may also be a point of interpretive dispute.