North Carolina Wrestles with Shifting Landscape of Sanctuary Policies

Key Takeaways

House Bill 10 (HB 10), effective December 1, 2024, mandates unconditional cooperation with ICE by all North Carolina law enforcement.
HB 10 restricts localities’ discretion on ICE detainers and assigns decision-making authority to North Carolina judicial officials.
Mecklenburg and other counties comply with HB 10, effectively ending sanctuary policies statewide; proposed federal lawsuits may increase liabilities.

North Carolina 🇺🇸 has become central to the growing debate over sanctuary policies for immigrants. These policies refer to rules or practices adopted by local governments that, in some cases, limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. As of February 2025, at least nine counties in North Carolina have implemented what some term “sanctuary-like” policies. These counties include Buncombe, Chatham, Durham, Forsyth, Guilford, Mecklenburg, Orange, Wake, and Watauga. However, the nature and enforcement of these policies vary widely, creating both legal uncertainties and intense debates.

The passage of House Bill 10 (HB 10), which became effective on December 1, 2024, has reshaped this dynamic substantially. The law requires all law enforcement officers in North Carolina to cooperate fully with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Specifically, it mandates that anyone detained for whom a federal ICE detainer has been issued must appear before a North Carolina judicial official without delay. This legislation directly targets counties previously perceived as resisting ICE compliance.

North Carolina Wrestles with Shifting Landscape of Sanctuary Policies

The North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association (NCSA) has played a pivotal role in ensuring that this law is understood and implemented uniformly. The association promptly notified all 100 sheriffs in North Carolina about the detailed requirements of HB 10. According to the NCSA, the law is straightforward, requiring no additional training beyond routine in-service sessions. Since North Carolina already has high levels of ICE cooperation in over 90 counties, the focus of this law has shifted to the remaining urban areas that had been resistant.

One of the most notable examples is Mecklenburg County, where Sheriff Garry McFadden had previously been vocal against cooperating with ICE. However, following the enactment of HB 10, Sheriff McFadden confirmed that his jurisdiction is now in compliance with the new legal requirements. He stated publicly that neither Mecklenburg County nor North Carolina has official sanctuary policies anymore because of the law’s mandate. Nonetheless, Sheriff McFadden emphasized the distinction between policy disagreements and legal compliance, reiterating his department’s adherence to HB 10.

The provisions in HB 10 affect all local jurisdictions, limiting their ability to operate independently on immigration-related decisions. For instance, judicial officials in North Carolina are now responsible for determining whether a detained individual aligns with the details in a federal detainer request. If such alignment exists, the individual must remain in custody per the court order, a regulation that effectively eliminates the discretion of local law enforcement.

HB 10 underwent revisions before its final passage. The North Carolina General Assembly amended portions of the original proposal to reduce administrative burdens for local sheriffs. Additionally, it clarified that ultimate judicial decision-making authority would rest with North Carolina courts. These revisions helped secure the NCSA’s endorsement of the bill in September 2024, which likely influenced its approval. In fact, the bill passed despite an attempted veto by the governor, highlighting strong legislative support for stricter immigration enforcement measures.

To further ensure effective implementation, the NCSA launched Legislative Update training sessions across the state. These sessions were held in counties such as Haywood, Catawba, Pitt, Duplin, and Wake. They are now part of mandatory in-service training for all law enforcement officers in North Carolina. This strategy ensures that sheriffs and police departments have the knowledge they need to implement HB 10 correctly.

Although HB 10 has gone into effect uniformly across the state, the broader debate around sanctuary policies remains far from settled. In January 2025, North Carolina Congressmen introduced a bill aiming to allow victims of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants to sue counties classified as sanctuary jurisdictions. If passed, this federal legislation could add another layer of legal and financial liability for local governments that attempt to minimize ICE cooperation.

Additionally, the U.S. Department of Justice recently weighed in, directing investigations of state or local law enforcement agencies that fail to comply with federal immigration laws. While these federal-level actions align with the intent of HB 10, they have increased scrutiny on previously sanctuary-like jurisdictions. Sheriff McFadden of Mecklenburg County confirmed that, due to his department’s compliance with HB 10, no threats of federal investigation currently exist for his jurisdiction.

The debate over immigration policy in North Carolina mirrors a broader national conversation on how federal, state, and local authorities interact. Many supporters of sanctuary-like policies argue that such measures build trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement. Critics, however, contend that these policies impede federal immigration efforts and could place public safety at risk.

The nine counties with sanctuary-like policies represent a diversity of approaches to immigration enforcement. For instance, some jurisdictions encourage local law enforcement officers to avoid asking people about their immigration status. Others outright refuse to honor ICE detainers unless additional criteria, such as a criminal conviction, are met. Critics, including advocates for increased immigration enforcement, view these variations as a form of noncompliance. Meanwhile, supporters of these policies argue that they help protect immigrants who may otherwise fear interacting with law enforcement due to their undocumented status.

The practical impact of HB 10 remains to be seen, particularly for immigrant communities across the state. Some argue that the law may deepen mistrust between these communities and local law enforcement, leading to fewer reports of crimes because of fear of inspection by immigration authorities. At the same time, others believe the law will strengthen public safety by facilitating closer collaboration between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities.

Further complicating the matter is the proposed legislation that would allow individuals to sue sanctuary jurisdictions. Should such a federal bill pass, localities perceived as adopting sanctuary policies could face financial and legal consequences. This potential development underscores how immigration enforcement policies are connecting state and local decision-making with national priorities more tightly than ever.

Looking ahead, several aspects require close monitoring. First, there may be legal challenges to specific provisions of HB 10. Questions remain over whether it adequately balances local autonomy with state and federal directives. Second, the federal bill to allow lawsuits against sanctuary jurisdictions could create additional liabilities or pressure points for counties in North Carolina. Lastly, public sentiment in immigrant communities and the broader public’s perception of immigration enforcement may influence future legislative actions.

Meanwhile, law enforcement agencies in North Carolina, guided by the NCSA, are adjusting operations to reflect the requirements of HB 10. These adjustments include substantial collaboration with judicial officials to ensure timely processing of detainer cases. While the nine counties previously associated with sanctuary-like policies remain operationally distinct, their ability to limit cooperation with ICE has drastically decreased under the weight of new standards.

The rollout of HB 10 signifies a major turning point in the state’s approach to immigration enforcement. As noted by VisaVerge.com, the ongoing tussle between local jurisdictions and federal directives highlights the complexities in balancing community interests, public safety, and immigration responsibilities. Although the state has taken strong legal action to standardize law enforcement practices, broader questions on immigration policy and local discretion continue to linger.

In conclusion, North Carolina has emerged as a critical case study in the negotiation of sanctuary policies, with implications for the rest of the nation. The introduction of House Bill 10 has shifted the dynamics substantially, making cooperation with ICE mandatory for all law enforcement officers in the state. The law has addressed key gaps in state-level enforcement consistency, yet it raises questions about immigrant rights, local autonomy, and the potential long-term effects on community policing. As further state and federal actions unfold, the balance between these competing forces will remain an evolving and ongoing debate. For more official information about the law’s provisions, you can visit the North Carolina General Assembly’s website at NCGA Official Website.

Learn Today

Sanctuary Policies → Local rules limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement to protect undocumented immigrants from potential deportation.
ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) → U.S. federal agency responsible for immigration enforcement, including detaining and deporting undocumented individuals.
Detainer → A request from ICE asking local law enforcement to hold an individual suspected of immigration violations for federal custody.
HB 10 (House Bill 10) → North Carolina legislation mandating law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities like ICE.
Judicial Official → A court authority responsible for determining legal decisions, including compliance with immigration-related detainer requests in North Carolina.

This Article in a Nutshell

North Carolina’s HB 10 mandates statewide cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, ending “sanctuary-like” practices in nine counties. Advocates say it strengthens public safety, while critics fear eroded immigrant trust in law enforcement. As local autonomy clashes with federal directives, North Carolina exemplifies the complex balance between enforcing immigration laws and safeguarding community relationships.
— By VisaVerge.com