Unpacking the “Sanctuary County” Narrative in North Carolina
In the heated landscape of U.S. immigration politics, a narrative has emerged suggesting certain North Carolina sheriffs are creating “sanctuary” jurisdictions by refusing to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). However, the North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association has issued a forceful clarification, arguing this claim misrepresents both the law and the duties of local law enforcement.
Tricia McLaughlin, spokesperson for the association, addressed the issue directly. “No, NC jails aren’t refusing to turn inmates over to immigration officials,” she stated, aiming to cut through the political rhetoric. Her clarification centers on a critical legal distinction often overlooked in the debate: the difference between an ICE detainer and a judicial warrant.
The Heart of the Matter: Detainers vs. Warrants
At the core of this issue is the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. Here’s the process:
- An individual is arrested for a state crime.
- Upon their scheduled release (after posting bond or completing a sentence), ICE can issue a “detainer.”
- This detainer is an administrative request—not a court order—asking the jail to hold the person for an additional 48 hours so ICE agents can take them into federal custody.
Sheriffs in several of North Carolina’s larger counties, including Wake, Mecklenburg, and Durham, have concluded that holding a person beyond their legal release time based solely on an administrative request is a potential violation of their constitutional rights.
A Stance on Law, Not Politics
According to McLaughlin, this decision isn’t a political stand against immigration enforcement. Rather, it is a prudent measure to uphold the law and protect their counties from significant legal and financial liability. Across the country, counties have paid millions in damages in lawsuits filed by individuals who were held unlawfully on ICE detainers without a warrant. For these sheriffs, their primary legal duty is to the state court order that mandates an inmate’s release.
Cooperation with ICE Continues
McLaughlin and the sheriffs she represents emphasize that cooperation with federal partners is still a priority. The “refusal” is narrowly focused on the specific act of holding someone past their court-ordered release time without a warrant. In practice, NC jails continue to:
- Notify ICE when an individual of interest is in their custody.
- Allow ICE agents access to the jails to interview individuals.
- Transfer custody of an inmate to federal agents who arrive with a criminal warrant or are present at the moment of the inmate’s scheduled release.
This nuanced position reframes the debate from one of defiance to one of legal compliance. It highlights the complex friction between federal immigration priorities and the constitutional responsibilities of local law enforcement—a tension that continues to define one of America’s most challenging political issues.
