WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 80

Prohibit Law Enforcement Officers with ICE at Farm/Construction Sites.

2025-2026 Session Introduced by Amber Baker and 12 co-sponsors

Prohibits state and local law enforcement from aiding ICE at farms, slaughter/processing facilities, and permitted construction sites; voids related MOUs; officers face discipline.

Passed 1st Reading
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 80

Summary — HB 80: "Prohibit LEO w/ICE at Farm/Construction Sites"

Bill Information
- Bill Number: HB 80
- Title: Prohibit Law Enforcement Officers with ICE at Farm/Construction Sites
- Status: Passed 1st Reading
- Introduced: August 15, 2025 (documented legislative actions show first reading in February 2025 for the North Carolina version)

Note: This summary focuses on the text titled “Prohibit LEO w/ICE at Farm/Construction Sites” (North Carolina House Bill 80, 2025 session) that appears in the provided materials.

Main purpose

To prohibit state and local criminal-justice agencies, sheriffs’ offices, and individual officers from assisting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with immigration enforcement (apprehensions, arrests, or service of removal warrants) at farmland, livestock processing facilities, and permitted construction sites.

Key provisions

  • New G.S. 17F-15 (added to Chapter 17F):

    • Prohibits criminal justice agencies and sheriffs’ offices from assisting ICE in (a) apprehending or arresting people for alleged immigration violations and (b) serving removal warrants at:
    • Real property used for agriculture/farming (per G.S. 106‑581.1); slaughter/processing/packaging of livestock; and
    • Permitted construction sites (sites with a state or local permit/license/authorization for new construction or improvements).
    • Declares any existing or future memorandum, agreement, or contract between a criminal justice agency or sheriff’s office and ICE void to the extent performance would violate the prohibition.
    • Prohibits individual criminal-justice or justice officers from assisting ICE in the listed enforcement activities at the specified locations.
    • Makes willful violations of the individual-officer prohibition grounds for suspension, revocation, or denial of the officer’s certification under Chapters 17C or 17E (criminal justice and justice officer certification statutes).
    • Clarifies nothing in the section prevents agencies or officers from enforcing state law as authorized.

  • Administrative implementation:

    • Requires the Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission and the Sheriffs’ Education and Training Standards Commission to promulgate rules consistent with the new statute.

  • Effective date:

    • The act is effective upon becoming law and applies to assistance provided on or after that date.

Who is affected

  • State and local criminal justice agencies and sheriffs’ offices in the state.
  • Individual criminal justice officers and justice officers (as defined in existing statutes).
  • ICE activities (will be denied local/state assistance at covered locations).
  • Agricultural operations, livestock processors, and permitted construction sites (these locations gain the statutory protection).
  • Employers and workers in those sectors (potential indirect effects on immigration enforcement presence).

Enforcement, penalties and procedural aspects

  • Violation by an officer may trigger certification discipline (suspension, revocation, denial).
  • Contracts or MOUs that would result in prohibited assistance are void to the extent of the conflict.
  • The training/standards commissions must issue implementing rules.
  • The statute expressly preserves authority to enforce state law at the same locations.

Potential impacts and considerations (concise, nonpartisan)

  • Operational: Limits federal-local cooperation for immigration enforcement at covered agricultural and construction sites; ICE would be required to rely primarily on federal resources at those locations.
  • Legal/administrative: Agencies must review existing agreements with ICE; personnel policies and training must be updated to reflect new restrictions and discipline mechanisms.
  • Public-safety and labor implications: Could affect how workplace immigration investigations are conducted and may influence worker reporting and employer practices in the covered industries.
  • Federal-state interplay: May raise practical or legal questions where federal enforcement seeks local assistance; the statute attempts to resolve this by voiding incompatible agreements and disciplining officers who willfully assist.

If you want, I can:
- Extract the exact statutory language and produce a side-by-side comparison with current G.S. provisions referenced (17C‑2, 17E‑2, 106‑581.1).
- Draft a one-page memo on operational steps for sheriffs’ offices to comply if the bill becomes law.

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

Sign in to ask a question.