NC Senate bills to limit AG's powers, ban phones in schools, and mandate ICE cooperation advance
The North Carolina Senate is set to consider bills limiting Attorney General Jeff Jackson's powers, requiring cellphone limitation policies in schools, and mandating cooperation with federal immigration authorities after favorable votes in a powerful gatekeeper committee.
On Thursday, members of the Senate Rules Committee endorsed Senate Bill 55, requiring schools to bar the use of cellphones during class time; Senate Bill 58, removing Jackson's ability to challenge presidential executive orders; and Senate Bill 153, ordering state law enforcement agencies to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The committee also advanced two technical bills related to the state's community college system.
Most discussion during the meeting centered on the bills concerning the attorney general and immigration.
'While there may be disagreement with whether he can do this or not, it does seem to me that the Attorney General is actually standing up to protect our universities and giving us a competitive advantage,' said Sen. Jay Chaudhuri (D-Wake), referencing cuts to federal research funding. 'In some ways, he's better positioning you all to provide tax cuts.'
He asked whether backers of SB 58 would want the Attorney General to litigate an executive order that would harm North Carolina's interests — for example, an 'anti-sweet potato' order, a hypothetical that drew laughs from the room.
'If in fact that was to happen, I feel fairly confident that the General Assembly could rise to the occasion and direct the Attorney General to take action against the President,' replied Republican Sen. Timothy Moffitt, the bill's lead sponsor.
Sen. Julie Mayfield, a Democrat from Buncombe County, noted that Jackson had participated in just four lawsuits challenging Trump's executive orders, choosing to do so when billions of dollars in federal funding and thousands of North Carolina jobs were at stake.
'I'm just puzzled about what it is that we don't like about what our attorney general is doing to help protect the jobs and the economy, to defend — which is his job — defend attacks on the jobs and the economy in North Carolina,' Mayfield said.
She also asked what would happen if Jackson — who serves in an independent constitutionally elected office — simply ignores the General Assembly's directive. 'You can't impeach him. You can't call for a new election — what happens if the Attorney General ignores this?'
'I could contemplate that the action that this body could take would be to take Chapter 114, Section 2, and just completely zero it out, and that way, the Attorney General is a feckless, empty shell of a position that has no authority to do anything,' Moffitt said.
Discussing the immigration bill, Sen. Buck Newton, a Republican who co-sponsored the proposal, called it simply 'the next step that the state needs to take to help support President Trump's efforts to curb illegal immigration.'
He explained it as a follow-up to a bill last session that required North Carolina sheriffs to cooperate with ICE, requiring state agencies to do the same, preventing public benefits from going to undocumented immigrants, blocking the University of North Carolina from undertaking 'sanctuary-type policies,' and opening up counties that do not cooperate with ICE to lawsuits by waiving their sovereign immunity.
Mario Alfaro, a policy director for El Pueblo NC, criticized the immigration bill as a 'violation of state autonomy' during public comment Thursday.
'Instead of protecting the state's citizens, it will create distrust and increase insecurity for everyone,' Alfaro said. 'More than 50% of farm workers are immigrants, more than 35% of construction workers are immigrants. We urge legislators to support policies that protect immigrants and their contributions, not those that ignore or hide the fact that North Carolina's economy needs immigrant workers.'
Samantha Salkin, a policy analyst for the ACLU of North Carolina, also condemned the bill, calling it 'an attack on immigrant communities and an attempt to further the false narrative that immigrants are a drain on our public service system.'
'Forcing law enforcement agencies to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement erodes the trust between immigrants and the protective services that they should be able to rely on,' Salkin said. 'Witnesses and victims of crimes are less likely to report crimes and cooperate with police for fear of deportation, making all of us less safe.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


San Francisco Chronicle
2 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
California Supreme Court clears way for Newsom's redistricting plan
The state Supreme Court opened the door Wednesday to plans by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democrats to redraw California's congressional districts in a gerrymander designed to pick up five seats, rejecting a Republican legal challenge. A lawsuit Monday by legislative Republicans contended the hastily drafted ballot measure, scheduled for votes in both houses on Thursday, has not been published long enough to meet the public-notice requirements in the state Constitution. But the court dismissed the suit Wednesday in a brief order with little explanation. The Republican lawmakers 'have failed to meet their burden of establishing a basis for relief at this time under (the) California Constitution,' the court said. Six justices, all appointed by Democratic governors, endorsed the order, while Justice Carol Corrigan, the only Republican appointee, was absent and did not participate, the court said. Newsom proposed the ballot measure, titled the Election Rigging Response Act, after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott introduced legislation to redraw the state's House districts and enable Republicans to pick up five seats in next year's elections. Democrats currently hold 43 of California's 52 House seats. The governor's measure, if approved by two-thirds majorities in both the Assembly and state Senate — where Democrats hold more than two-thirds of the seats — would redesign California's House seats for the rest of this decade in response to changes in Texas or any other state. Ballot measures approved by the voters in 2008 and 2010 established a bipartisan, independent commission to draft congressional and legislative districts in California, a task previously left up to state legislators, who design districts in most states. Newsom's proposed state constitutional amendment, ACA8, would temporarily suspend that commission if approved by a majority of the voters in November. While California law does not allow legislative action on a proposed measure until 30 days after it has been introduced, Democrats apparently sidestepped that deadline with a longstanding practice known as 'gut and amend' — using other legislation that had been pending for more than 30 days, erasing the contents and replacing them with the redistricting language. That was apparently enough to defeat the Republicans' lawsuit. Other Republican lawmakers, and the National Republican Congressional Committee, have promised additional challenges under the California Constitution and federal election laws.


The Hill
2 minutes ago
- The Hill
Vance scoffs at ‘idea that Gavin Newsom is somehow going to mimic' Trump's social media style
Vice President JD Vance criticized California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Wednesday for trying to 'mimic' President Trump's style on social media. In an interview on Fox News's 'The Ingraham Angle,' the vice president said Newsom's revamped approach to online messaging misses the 'fundamental genius' that has fueled Trump's appeal. 'This idea that Gavin Newsom is somehow going to mimic Donald Trump's style — I think that ignores the fundamental genius of President Trump's political success,' Vance said, 'which is that he's authentic.' 'He just is who he is,' Vance added. The comments came after Fox News host Laura Ingraham noted Democrats 'are still doing their 2024 autopsy' and seem to have concluded that they need to be tougher and 'be more like Trump in tone' to win future elections. Vance said that lesson is misguided. 'Look, the autopsy for the Democrats — some free political advice from the president of the United States — is stop sounding like crazy people,' Vance said. 'That really is all it is.' 'You've got to be yourself,' Vance added after criticizing Newsom's approach. 'You've actually got to talk to people honestly about the issues. I don't think it's that complicated: Don't be a crazy person. Be authentic.' Newsom, a potential 2028 presidential contender, in recent days has rolled out a revamped messaging strategy that mirrors Trump's signature social media style. The California governor has posted rants in all-caps letters, he's assigned nicknames to his political opponents, and he's referred to his legislative proposals and political rallies as 'beautiful.' While Newsom's approach has been embraced by many Democrats, who have struggled to find their footing since losing the 2024 election, the governor has faced criticism from some Republicans and Fox News hosts. 'FOX HATES THAT I AM AMERICA'S MOST FAVORITE GOVERNOR ('RATINGS KING') SAVING AMERICA,' Newsom's office posted earlier this week, responding to that criticism.


The Hill
2 minutes ago
- The Hill
California Supreme Court rejects GOP effort to halt Newsom's redistricting push
The California Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a petition filed by state Republican legislators seeking to halt Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) plan to redistrict California's congressional map. 'Petitioners have failed to meet their burden of establishing a basis for relief at this time under California Constitution article IV, section 8,' reads a brief order posted to the docket. Newsom has hit back at Republican redistricting efforts in Texas by pushing for a special election this November to get voters' approval on a more favorable House map for Democrats in California in time for the 2026 midterms. The ruling paves the way for the California legislature to proceed with voting as soon as Thursday on a package that would set up the special election. Republicans' legal challenge revolved around a 30-day waiting period mandated under the state constitution before an introduced bill can be passed, unless three-fourths of lawmakers agree to waive the requirement. Democrats looked to get around the requirement by gutting the text of bills introduced in February and replacing them with the redistricting effort. Four state Republican legislators — Sen. Tony Strickland, Sen. Suzette Martinez Valladares, Assemblyman Tri Ta and Assemblywoman Kate Sanchez — went to the state's high court on Tuesday seeking to effectively block the redistricting effort. The petition sought to stop Democrats from moving ahead until Sept. 18, far past the window that state officials have said would be necessary to prepare for an election on Nov. 4. The lawmakers' attorneys acknowledged in court filings that it was a case of first impression but said that permitting Democrats' strategy would be 'comically absurd.' In a joint statement, the lawmakers stressed the court did not explain its ruling and said it is 'not the end of this fight.' 'This means Governor Newsom and the Democrats' plan to gut the voter-created Citizens Redistricting Commission, silence public input, and stick taxpayers with a $200+ million bill will proceed,' the statement reads. 'We will continue to challenge this unconstitutional power grab in the courts and at the ballot box. Californians deserve fair, transparent elections, not secret backroom deals to protect politicians,' it continued.