North Carolina Republicans Reintroduce Bill That Would Allow Lawsuits Against Sanctuary Cities

North Carolina lawmakers are making waves with a new legislative move aimed at addressing the issue of sanctuary cities. On Wednesday, a group of Republican legislators introduced the “Justice for Victims of Sanctuary Cities Act.” This proposed law is designed to allow victims of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants to sue cities, counties, or states that fail to comply with ICE deportation orders.

Sponsored by Senators Thom Tillis and Ted Budd, along with nine other Republican senators, this bill targets local jurisdictions that implement policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The bill follows the actions of Rep. Chuck Edwards, who initially introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives last year and reintroduced it this year.

According to Senator Tillis, the purpose of the bill is clear. He expressed frustration that certain local governments have been ignoring lawful deportation requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), instead choosing to release undocumented individuals who may have committed serious crimes. “For far too long, we have watched local jurisdictions ignore lawful notification and detainer requests made by ICE agents and release dangerous criminals back into communities, putting innocent lives at risk,” he said in a news release. “It is time for Congress to step in and hold sanctuary cities accountable.”

In many counties across North Carolina, including Buncombe, Chatham, and Mecklenburg, local governments operate under sanctuary policies. These policies limit or prohibit local law enforcement from fully cooperating with ICE, especially regarding detainers—requests from ICE to hold undocumented immigrants until they can be transferred into federal custody.

If this bill passes, cities and counties that continue to resist ICE detainer requests would be legally liable for any crimes committed by released undocumented immigrants. Under the proposed law, victims would be able to file lawsuits for damages. The statute of limitations for such claims would extend up to 10 years, depending on the severity of the crime or the death of an individual resulting from that crime.

However, there are legal complexities involved. Rick Su, an immigration law professor at the University of North Carolina, pointed out that the bill’s success hinges on the ability of states to waive “sovereign immunity” – the legal principle that protects states and localities from being sued in federal court. To make this possible, the bill includes provisions requiring states and local jurisdictions to waive their immunity if they receive certain federal grants. This waiver would apply to grants related to community and housing development, although disaster relief grants are exempted.

Professor Su cautioned that this could lead to constitutional challenges. While the federal government has the power to attach conditions to funding, there is a risk that such conditions could be seen as “coercive,” violating the Eleventh Amendment. In the past, the Supreme Court struck down parts of the Affordable Care Act that mandated Medicaid expansion, ruling that states could not be forced to comply or lose all federal funding.

One of the most significant aspects of this bill is its impact on local law enforcement. The bill would protect law enforcement officers from legal action for complying with ICE detainers. However, the protection does not extend to cases where law enforcement knowingly violates civil or constitutional rights.

This creates a delicate balancing act for cities and counties, which could face lawsuits if they fail to cooperate with ICE. On the other hand, compliance with ICE orders might expose local governments to civil rights lawsuits. These conflicting legal pressures could force local governments into a difficult position where they are forced to choose between legal liability for sanctuary policies and potential legal action for working with federal immigration authorities.

Rep. Chuck Edwards, who championed the bill in the House, added that sanctuary cities are a direct threat to public safety. “Sanctuary cities cannot continue to jeopardize Americans’ safety and not be held accountable for their role in the illegal immigrant crime crisis we are facing today,” he said. Edwards believes the new bill will finally hold local jurisdictions responsible when their policies contribute to crimes committed by undocumented immigrants.

The bill has been introduced at a time when immigration reform is a hot topic across the country. President Donald Trump has long pushed for stricter immigration policies, including the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants. However, his efforts have faced legal and political roadblocks, such as the recent federal judge ruling that blocked his executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship.

The bill is also introduced shortly after the passage of the “Laken Riley Act,” which expands detention requirements for undocumented immigrants arrested for minor crimes, further supporting the Trump administration’s push for tougher immigration enforcement. The bill has already garnered bipartisan support, with some Democrats joining Republicans to support policies that facilitate deportations.

During his presidency, Trump has repeatedly clashed with sanctuary cities, signing an executive order to withhold federal funding from cities that do not comply with his immigration policies. Although the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this action unconstitutional, the conflict between sanctuary cities and the federal government remains unresolved.

In response to these tensions, Republican governors such as Ron DeSantis of Florida and Greg Abbott of Texas have taken matters into their own hands by sending buses of migrants to sanctuary cities. This move highlights the ongoing political debate about immigration enforcement and the role of local governments in supporting federal immigration policies.

In North Carolina, state lawmakers enacted legislation targeting sanctuary cities in November, overriding a veto from then-Governor Roy Cooper. The new law requires sheriffs to comply with ICE detainers and shields them from legal liability when holding individuals under ICE requests.

As the proposed “Justice for Victims of Sanctuary Cities Act” moves through the legislative process, it is clear that the issue of sanctuary cities remains a point of contention in both North Carolina and nationwide. This bill could have far-reaching consequences for cities, counties, and states that choose to ignore federal immigration laws.

For now, supporters of the bill argue that it is a necessary step to protect American citizens from the risks posed by sanctuary policies. Critics, however, warn that it could lead to an overreach of federal power and undermine local control over law enforcement. The outcome of this legislation will likely shape the future of sanctuary city policies across the United States.

Disclaimer – Our editorial team has thoroughly fact-checked this article to ensure its accuracy and eliminate any potential misinformation. We are dedicated to upholding the highest standards of integrity in our content.

About The Author