Chavez v. Carmichael, 262 N.C. App. 196

Background

Mecklenburg County Sheriff entered a 287(g) agreement with ICE (Feb 28, 2017) delegating certain immigration enforcement functions to sheriff’s personnel.
Luiz Lopez and Carlos Chavez were arrested on state charges, served with ICE Form I-200 warrants and ICE Form I-247A detainers, and remained detained after they became otherwise eligible for state release.
Lopez and Chavez filed state habeas petitions; the superior court held a return hearing in their absence, found detention unlawful, and ordered immediate release.
Sheriff had already turned custody over to ICE before the superior court’s release orders; Sheriff appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals and obtained writs of certiorari/prohibition to review the superior court orders.
The Court of Appeals considered whether the superior court had subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate habeas petitions challenging detention based on federal immigration warrants/detainers, and whether the sheriff was acting under federal authority via the 287(g) agreement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether superior court had jurisdiction to hear habeas petitions challenging detention under ICE detainers/warrants	Petitioners: state courts may review habeas claims because sheriff acted under state law and not under color of federal authority; NC law forbids civil immigration detention beyond state release eligibility	Sheriff: federal government has exclusive authority over immigration; sheriff acted under federal authority (287(g) and ICE detainers) so state court lacks jurisdiction	Held: Superior court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction; petitions should have been dismissed and orders vacated
Whether North Carolina law permits sheriffs to perform immigration detention under a 287(g) agreement	Petitioners: NC statutes (e.g., §162-62) prohibit holding prisoners beyond state-eligible release for immigration purposes	Sheriff: NC statute §128-1.1 authorizes entering 287(g) agreements consistent with federal law; §162-62 does not bar 287(g) functions	Held: NC law permits 287(g) performance; §128-1.1 controls and does not conflict with §162-62
Whether sheriff acted as a federal officer when enforcing immigration detainers under 287(g)	Petitioners: sheriff’s action was state action, not federal	Sheriff/Amicus: under 287(g) and federal law, deputized personnel act under federal supervision and are federal officers	Held: Sheriff acted under federal authority/under color of federal law (de facto federal officer) when detaining petitioners under 287(g) and ICE detainers
Whether state courts may order release of persons detained under federal authority	Petitioners: state habeas relief is appropriate to protect constitutional rights	Sheriff: Ableman/Tarble bars state courts from interfering where detainee is held under U.S. authority	Held: State courts cannot grant habeas release where detainee is held under federal authority; state court must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and federal courts are proper venue

Key Cases Cited

Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 506 (opinion that state courts cannot interfere with persons imprisoned under U.S. authority)
In re Tarble, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 397 (state courts must refuse habeas where prisoner is held under color of U.S. authority)
DeCanas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (federal exclusivity over immigration regulation)
Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (broad federal authority over immigration and limits on state interference)
United States v. Sosa-Carabantes, 561 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. recognizing 287(g) deputization of local officers by ICE)
City of El Cenizo v. Texas, 890 F.3d 164 (5th Cir. stating state/local officials under 287(g) become de facto immigration officers)
Ricketts v. Palm Beach County Sheriff, 985 So.2d 591 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008) (state courts cannot adjudicate validity of federal detainers)
State v. Chavez-Juarez, 923 N.E.2d 670 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009) (state lacks authority to adjudicate federal immigration detainer challenges)