WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 454

Review of Federal Acts/Rules/Regulations.

2025-2026 Session Introduced by Keith Kidwell and 2 co-sponsors

HB 454 lets NC review federal actions for constitutionality and bans state and funded entities from implementing those deemed unconstitutional in key areas.

Passed 1st Reading
#agriculture;attorneygeneral;charterschools;constitution #us;councilofstate;diseases&healthdisorders;education;elementaryeducation;environment;financialservices;justicedept.;public;publichealth;publicofficials;secondaryeducation;sports;waterresources;weapons;wetlands;nullification
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 454

Summary — HB 454 (Review of Federal Acts/Rules/Regulations)

Status: Passed 1st Reading
Introduced: November 12, 2024
Location in law if enacted: Adds § 120‑9.1 to Article 2 of Chapter 120, N.C. General Statutes

Main purpose

HB 454 creates a statutory procedure for the North Carolina General Assembly (and, at its direction, the Attorney General) to review federal laws, federal rules, and presidential executive orders ("federal actions") for constitutionality and to prohibit State implementation of federal actions that the General Assembly or Attorney General determines are unconstitutional in specified subject areas.

Key provisions

  • Definition: A “federal action” = federal law, federal rule, or presidential executive order.
  • Review authority: The General Assembly may review any federal action for constitutionality and may direct the Attorney General to conduct such a review and, if appropriate, pursue legal challenges or exemptions.
  • If the Attorney General declines to challenge a federal action as directed, the General Assembly may itself declare the federal action unconstitutional.
  • Prohibition on implementation: The State, any political subdivision, and any organization that receives State funds “shall not implement” any federal action that (a) restricts a person’s rights or (b) either the General Assembly or the Attorney General has determined to be unconstitutional, when the federal action concerns any of the listed subject areas (see below).
  • Enumerated subject areas (examples where prohibition applies if GA or AG finds federal action unconstitutional):
    1. Pandemic or other health emergencies
    2. Regulation of natural resources (including oil and natural gas)
    3. Regulation of the agricultural industry
    4. Use of land, wetlands, and water
    5. Financial-sector regulation related to environmental, social, or governance (ESG) standards
    6. Regulation of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms
    7. Regulation of education
    8. Regulation of interscholastic, intramural, or other extracurricular sports run by public higher‑ed institutions, local school administrative units, or charter schools
    9. “Any other powers reserved to the State of North Carolina and the people of North Carolina”
  • Effective date: the act is effective upon becoming law.

Who would be affected

  • State executive agencies and departments
  • Local governments and their agencies (counties, municipalities, school systems)
  • Organizations and entities that receive State funds (publicly funded nonprofits, contractors, grantees)
  • The Attorney General’s Office (may be directed to review/challenge federal actions)
  • Potentially private parties and regulated industries in the enumerated subject areas (health care, natural resources, agriculture, education, finance, firearms, sports)

Procedural / timeline aspects

  • The statute would be added to Article 2 of Chapter 120 (legislative powers and procedures).
  • The General Assembly may initiate reviews and may direct the Attorney General to act; timing and process for such reviews are not prescribed in detail in the text.
  • No specific administrative implementation schedule or required reports are included.

Potential effects and legal considerations

  • Operational effect: Would bar state agencies, localities, and state-funded organizations from implementing covered federal actions that the General Assembly or Attorney General deems unconstitutional.
  • Litigation risk: The provision anticipates state-initiated litigation but also raises a significant possibility of legal conflict with federal authorities (including questions under the Supremacy Clause and established doctrines on preemption and federal supremacy).
  • Fiscal and compliance implications: Non‑implementation of federal laws or rules could jeopardize federal funding, partnerships, or program eligibility for state and local entities; the bill does not include mechanisms to mitigate those fiscal impacts.
  • Ambiguities: The bill does not set detailed standards or processes for how constitutionality determinations are to be made, how disputes between the legislature and the Attorney General are resolved, or how long a prohibition remains in force pending judicial review.

This summary focuses on the bill text and likely administrative and legal consequences; it does not predict judicial outcomes.

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

Sign in to ask a question.