North Carolina’s GOP-controlled House voted Wednesday to override Democratic Governor Josh Stein’s veto of a bill requiring state law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, a move that ends sanctuary policies statewide and punishes local governments that refuse to comply.
The override caps a fight that stretched more than a year. The legislature first passed SB 153, dubbed the North Carolina Border Protection Act, at the end of 2024. Stein vetoed it last June. The bill then cycled through months of debate before Republicans finally secured the votes to push it through over the governor’s objections.
The result is straightforward: North Carolina police agencies must now work with ICE and honor federal immigration detainers for illegal immigrants held in local custody. Cities and counties that maintain sanctuary policies face sanctions. Republican State Senator Phil Berger, who sponsored the measure, framed the vote on social media as “decisive action to end sanctuary policies and tackle illegal immigration.”
Getting here was not automatic. AP News reported that Republicans were one seat shy of a veto-proof majority, meaning they needed at least one Democrat to cross party lines for an override to succeed. That math made the outcome uncertain for months.
It happened anyway. The Washington Examiner reported that one Democrat, Rep. Carla Cunningham of Mecklenburg, voted with Republicans on a related immigration enforcement bill, the Criminal Illegal Alien Enforcement Act (HB 318), which passed the House 71-47. That bill requires sheriffs to cooperate with ICE and hold suspects for 48 hours after ICE notification. Republicans hold a 71-49 majority in the chamber, and the override required a three-fifths vote.
Speaker Destin Hall, a Republican from Caldwell County, had promised swift action after Stein’s vetoes. “The House will override his open border vetoes ASAP so we can make our state safer,” Hall said.
Stein offered a different rationale for his veto. The governor said he could not sign the legislation “because it would require sheriffs to unconstitutionally detain people for up to 48 hours after they would otherwise be released.” That constitutional argument did not persuade enough lawmakers to sustain the veto.
SB 153 does several things. It compels state policing agencies to work directly with ICE and other federal immigration officials. It mandates that local law enforcement observe federal immigration detainers, meaning when ICE flags someone in local custody as an illegal immigrant, the jail holds them rather than releasing them back onto the street.
The law also targets sanctuary jurisdictions. Any city or county that adopts policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement now faces sanctions. The specific penalties are not detailed in available reporting, but the intent is clear: no more local opt-outs from federal immigration law.
The broader legislative push in North Carolina included a second bill expanding a 2024 law that already required jails to hold defendants suspected of being in the country illegally. Together, the measures represent the most aggressive immigration enforcement framework the state has adopted.
Democrats in Raleigh opposed both bills. Democratic Sen. Sophia Chitlik argued that constituents “didn’t send us here to round up their neighbors. They sent us here to make their lives better.” That framing, treating immigration enforcement as hostility toward neighbors rather than as law enforcement, is a familiar progressive argument. It did not carry the day.
North Carolina is not acting alone. Indiana passed its own immigration enforcement law, the FAIRNESS Act (Senate Enrolled Act 76), which the governor signed in March. The law, enacted as Public Law 106, takes full effect on July 1.
Indiana’s law goes further than North Carolina’s in one respect: it targets employers. Businesses that knowingly hire workers not legally authorized to work in the United States face suspension of all business licenses, among other penalties. The law also requires state law enforcement to comply with federal immigration detainers, mirroring North Carolina’s approach.
The trend reflects a growing willingness among Republican-led states to fill gaps left by years of lax federal enforcement. While Senate Republicans debate a $140 billion immigration enforcement plan at the federal level, states are not waiting.
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita made clear that enforcement will not be theoretical. At a press conference after the bill’s passage, Rokita warned employers directly:
“Starting July 1, you’re gonna see our office more and more at job sites like this to see exactly what’s going on and who’s being hired and how many.”
That is not ambiguity. That is a state attorney general telling businesses he plans to show up and check their payrolls.
Governor Stein’s veto of SB 153 followed a familiar playbook. A Democratic executive blocks an immigration enforcement bill, frames the opposition as a constitutional or humanitarian concern, and hopes the legislature cannot muster the votes to override. In this case, the playbook failed.
The Franklin County GOP celebrated the override, stating the new law will “save lives.” That claim will be tested in practice. But the political reality is already established: North Carolina’s legislature has the votes, and the governor’s veto pen is no longer the final word on immigration enforcement in the state.
This dynamic is playing out beyond state capitols. Federal courts have become another battleground, with judges striking down ICE courthouse arrest policies and other enforcement mechanisms. The legal fights over immigration enforcement stretch from courthouses to statehouses to Capitol Hill.
Berger, the bill’s sponsor, cast the override in broader terms. “North Carolina is one step closer to increasing the safety of every citizen in the state,” he said. Whether you agree with that assessment depends largely on whether you believe local police should help federal authorities enforce immigration law, or whether you think sanctuary policies that shield illegal immigrants from ICE detainers make communities safer.
The data on that question is contested. The political momentum is not. Republican legislatures in multiple states are moving to eliminate sanctuary policies, require cooperation with ICE, and impose real penalties on jurisdictions and employers that refuse to comply. Even recent Supreme Court rulings on asylum and deportation policy have reinforced the federal government’s enforcement authority, giving state-level cooperation bills stronger legal footing.
North Carolina’s law is now in effect. The practical questions remain: How quickly will state agencies implement the new cooperation requirements? Will any local jurisdictions test the sanctions by maintaining sanctuary policies? And will the law survive the inevitable legal challenges that follow every state-level immigration enforcement measure?
In Indiana, the July 1 implementation date for the FAIRNESS Act means employers have days to ensure compliance before Attorney General Rokita’s office begins its promised workplace inspections. The combination of detainer compliance and employer enforcement makes Indiana’s law one of the most comprehensive state-level immigration measures in the country.
Meanwhile, federal judges continue to intervene in immigration enforcement at the national level, creating a patchwork of rulings that often frustrate enforcement efforts. State-level laws like those in North Carolina and Indiana represent an alternative path, one that does not depend on federal courts or a cooperative White House to function.
Governor Stein’s veto message argued that the bill would force unconstitutional detention. The legislature disagreed. The voters who elected that legislature’s supermajority presumably disagree as well. In a system built on separated powers, the legislature had the last word.
When a governor vetoes a law and the legislature overrides it, that is not a crisis. That is the system working exactly as designed, and in this case, working on behalf of citizens who expect their laws to be enforced.
By signing up, you agree to receive newsletters and promotional content from American Frontline News and selected publications in the American Digest Media Network, operated with Patriot Mom Digest LLC, and you accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.
By signing up, you agree to receive newsletters and promotional content from American Frontline News and selected publications in the American Digest Media Network, operated with Patriot Mom Digest LLC, and you accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.