WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 72

Crimes & offenses; smoking or vaping marijuana in motor vehicle when child is present prohibited, criminal penalties provided, notification of Department of Human Resources required, mandatory reporting if child smells of marijuana required

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Patrick Sellers

HB 72 prohibits NC Attorney General from taking part in out-of-state litigation that aims to invalidate presidential executive orders, limiting multistate challenges.

Third Reading in House of Origin
#crimes&offenses
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 72

Summary — HB 72 (North Carolina): Attorney General / Restrict Challenge to Presidential Executive Orders

Status: Introduced (filed Jan–Feb 2025); referred to committees (serial referral to Rules added then stricken). Bill text amends G.S. 114‑2.8. Effective when it becomes law; applies to actions filed or commenced on or after that date.

Purpose

HB 72 would limit the North Carolina Attorney General’s participation in out‑of‑state litigation that seeks to invalidate executive orders issued by the President of the United States. It expands an existing statutory restriction (originally aimed at preventing the AG from advancing arguments that would invalidate state statutes) to cover federal presidential executive orders.

Key provisions

  • Amends G.S. 114‑2.8 to add a new prohibition on the Attorney General’s litigation activity outside North Carolina.
  • Specifically, the Attorney General "shall not, as a party, amicus, or any other participant in an action pending before a state or federal court in another state, advance any argument that would result in the invalidation of (i) any statute enacted by the General Assembly or (ii) any executive order issued by the President of the United States."
  • The restriction applies to participation in actions pending before courts in other states (includes both state and federal courts in another state).
  • Effective upon enactment and applies to cases filed or commenced on or after that date.

Who would be affected

  • North Carolina Attorney General’s Office: limits litigation choices, amicus filings, and coordinated multistate actions challenging presidential executive orders.
  • Multistate coalitions of attorneys general: North Carolina could be precluded from joining or supporting lawsuits in other states that seek to overturn presidential executive orders.
  • State agencies and private parties relying on the AG for representation or coordination in interstate litigation against federal executive action.
  • The federal executive branch and proponents of challenged executive orders (indirectly, by reducing coordinated challenges).

Potential impact and considerations

  • Practical effect: narrows the AG’s authority to participate in out‑of‑state litigation aimed at invalidating presidential executive orders, potentially reducing North Carolina’s involvement in multistate challenges to federal executive action.
  • Litigation and policy implications:
    • Could shift where and how the State seeks to protect its interests (e.g., by bringing actions in North Carolina courts or limiting arguments in multistate suits).
    • May raise separation‑of‑powers and legal‑authority questions about the legislature restricting an elected constitutional officer’s litigation discretion.
    • Could prompt legal challenges over whether the statute impermissibly constrains the Attorney General’s duties or conflicts with federal‑law enforcement prerogatives.
  • Enforcement mechanism: the bill imposes the statutory prohibition but does not specify civil or criminal penalties; compliance would be enforced through statutory limits on permissible conduct by the AG.

Context

  • HB 72 expands a restriction added by S.L. 2024‑57 (which barred the AG from advancing arguments to invalidate state statutes in out‑of‑state litigation) to include presidential executive orders.
  • The restriction is narrowly framed by venue (actions pending in another state’s courts) and by the specific legal outcome barred (arguments that would invalidate statutes or presidential executive orders).

If you want, I can:
- Extract the exact bill text language and place it side‑by‑side with current G.S. 114‑2.8;
- Prepare a short memo on constitutional challenges that could be raised against this statute; or
- Summarize how comparable limits on attorneys general have fared in litigation in other states.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.