HB 891 would create a new “Government Agency Forum Selection Act” and tighten restrictions on how the State, local political subdivisions, and the Attorney General participate in litigation. As drafted, the bill states a policy preference that North Carolina’s state courts should be the primary forum for civil actions involving the State or a local political subdivision when state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction. It would require such actions brought by the State or a local political subdivision to be filed in state court, allow filing in federal court only when federal jurisdiction is exclusive, and prohibit the State or local political subdivision from removing or consenting to removal of cases from state court to federal court when they are defendants.
The bill also revises G.S. 114-2.8 to limit the Attorney General’s participation in litigation outside North Carolina. It would direct the Attorney General to initiate actions to enforce or defend state law and bar the Attorney General from taking positions in out-of-state or federal proceedings that would invalidate a statute enacted by the General Assembly. In addition, it would prohibit the Attorney General from entering into a class action lawsuit without legislative approval during regular session, or without approval from the Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore when the General Assembly is not in regular session.
The bill includes several express exemptions from the forum-selection rules. Those exemptions cover certain state agents, judicial department personnel and judges, district attorneys, law enforcement officers and agencies, local governments, lawsuits filed by incarcerated people, Medicaid-related lawsuits, and employment discrimination claims. It also contains a severability clause, indicating that if one part is struck down, the rest may remain in effect.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is one of legislative control over litigation strategy and a preference for keeping certain state-related disputes in North Carolina courts. Because there are no recorded votes or committee transcripts provided, there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the available materials. However, the structure of the bill suggests support for limiting the Attorney General’s discretion and for centralizing decisions about major litigation in the General Assembly or its leaders.
The main points of contention likely concern separation of powers, the Attorney General’s authority, and whether the legislature should dictate litigation forum and settlement/class-action decisions. Potentially affected parties include the Attorney General’s office, state agencies, local governments, and litigants in cases involving the State, while the exemptions indicate an effort to avoid disrupting certain categories of cases such as criminal justice, Medicaid, and employment discrimination matters.
HB 891 would add a new Article 54 to Chapter 1 of the North Carolina General Statutes and amend G.S. 114-2.8. Its practical effect would be to require the State and local political subdivisions to prefer state court for civil actions where jurisdiction is concurrent, restrict removal to federal court, and limit the Attorney General’s ability to participate in litigation in ways that could undermine state statutes or enter class actions without legislative approval. The bill would therefore change litigation procedures and decision-making authority for state-related civil cases, while expressly carving out several categories of cases from its reach.
Based on the bill’s text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the bill appears to reflect a generally assertive, pro-legislature stance on litigation control rather than a consensus or compromise measure. Its tone suggests support among sponsors for keeping state-related disputes in state court and for constraining the Attorney General’s independent litigation choices. No direct evidence of support or opposition from floor or committee discussion is available in the supplied record.
The likely areas of contention are the bill’s restrictions on the Attorney General and its attempt to direct where the State may litigate. Critics may view the measure as infringing on executive branch discretion and altering the traditional authority of the Attorney General, especially by requiring legislative approval for class actions and limiting positions taken in out-of-state litigation. Supporters would likely argue that the bill protects state sovereignty, prevents forum shopping, and ensures that elected legislators retain control over litigation that could affect state law. The exemptions for law enforcement, Medicaid, incarcerated plaintiffs, and employment discrimination claims suggest the bill was drafted to avoid sweeping too broadly, but those carve-outs may also invite questions about consistency and scope.