NC expands ICE cooperation under SCOTUS rulings, new state immigration law

Two U.S. Supreme Court rulings and a new North Carolina law are reshaping how immigration policy is enforced in the state. The new law expands cooperation between local law enforcement and federal authorities in a way that could affect thousands of immigrants already living and working in North Carolina.

The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the Trump administration to move forward with ending Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, which helps people from countries facing war, natural disasters or other extreme conditions.

The program allows recipients to live and work legally in the United States on a temporary basis while conditions in their home countries remain unsafe. It doesn’t provide a pathway to citizenship, but it has allowed many people to remain in the country for years — in some cases decades — while working legally, paying taxes and raising families.

Thursday’s ruling doesn’t immediately end TPS protections. But it removes a key legal barrier that has limited how quickly the federal government can terminate those designations. It now gives the executive branch broader authority to determine when to terminate TPS.

Rick Su, an immigration law professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law, said about 35,000 people across the state will be affected.

Ann Robertson, an immigration attorney in Raleigh, said the TPS recipients she has worked with have complied with immigration requirements while building lives in the United States, often with U.S.-born children and steady employment.

“These are people who are doing things the right way,” Robertson said. “They’re following the law.”

The Supreme Court rulings don’t immediately change the legal status of TPS recipients or other immigrants. Any changes would depend on future actions by the Department of Homeland Security and further court proceedings. 

New North Carolina law

But in North Carolina, a new state law establishes a more formal structure for cooperation with federal immigration authorities. That sets the stage for how enforcement is likely to be carried out as federal policy continues to evolve, because it will be up to the federal government to set these policies.

And federal immigration officials have been signaling a longer-term shift in enforcement strategy: relying more heavily on state and local law enforcement to help carry out immigration duties.

Republican lawmakers in North Carolina have been trying to force law enforcement to do just that.

That federal direction aligns closely with recent action in North Carolina. On Wednesday. Republican lawmakers overrode Democratic Gov. Josh Stein’s veto to enact legislation expanding cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

The law requires state public safety and correction agencies to participate in the federal 287(g) program, which compels trained state officers to perform certain immigration enforcement functions under supervision from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It also strengthens requirements for sheriffs to notify ICE before releasing certain individuals from jail and to hold them briefly for federal pickup.

Republicans said it strengthens coordination between agencies and improves public safety.

“These are commonsense things to do to ensure we are doing what we can at a state level to address illegal immigration and protect our citizens,” Rep. Reece Pyrtle Jr., R-Rockingham told lawmakers on the House floor prior to the vote.

Democrats, however, argued the law expands the role of local agencies in federal immigration enforcement, strains relationships between law enforcement and immigrant communities and diverts time and resources from other public safety priorities.

Su, the immigration professor, said the significance of the court rulings and state law is not any single policy change, but the combined effect of shifting enforcement power and responsibility.

“We’ve moved away from ‘you can’t block federal enforcement’ to ‘you now must do it,’” Su said. “The question now is: what will the federal government ask next?”

Robertson said the combination of court rulings and expanded state cooperation could create uncertainty for immigrant families, particularly as enforcement tools become more decentralized.

“Local law enforcement is being pulled into federal immigration enforcement in a way that I believe is unsafe for citizens. We don’t know what could be coming from the federal government next,” she said.

Su added that the ripple effects could extend beyond immigrant communities if governments increasingly require proof of legal status to access public services or verify eligibility.

“We’re likely to see a lot more requirements that you prove citizenship or legal status,” he said. “That won’t just affect immigrants. It will affect everyone.”