Chavez v. McFadden, 374 N.C. 458

In Feb 2017 Mecklenburg County (Sheriff Carmichael) entered a 287(g) agreement with ICE authorizing certain deputies to perform immigration enforcement under federal direction.
Chavez and Lopez were held in the county jail on state charges; both became eligible for release on 13 Oct 2017 but the Sheriff continued to hold them pursuant to ICE arrest warrants/detainers (Form I-200 / I-247A).
Petitioners filed emergency habeas petitions in state superior court seeking discharge; the trial court issued writs and then ordered release, but the Sheriff did not appear, later filed returns claiming federal custody, and transferred both to ICE.
The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded, holding state courts lack jurisdiction to issue habeas for persons held under federal immigration authority (including where sheriff acts under a 287(g) agreement) and dismissed the petitions.
The North Carolina Supreme Court held the case was moot but within the public-interest exception, and ruled the trial court erred: when a habeas application alleges custody under an immigration warrant/detainer by a sheriff party to a 287(g) agreement, the state trial court must summarily deny the application and must defer to federal authority.
The Supreme Court modified/affirmed in part, reversed/vacated in part, and remanded with instructions to deny petitioners’ habeas applications and not order discharge; it also vacated portions of the Court of Appeals opinion addressing non-287(g) sheriffs.

Issue	Petitioners' Argument	Sheriff’s Argument	Held
Mootness / reviewability	Sheriff waived review by mooting orders; appellate court shouldn’t issue advisory opinion	Public-interest exception applies; issue capable of repetition and evading review	Case moot but fits public-interest exception; merits considered
State habeas authority over persons held under immigration detainers where sheriff has 287(g)	Trial court can inquire whether detainee is in state custody and whether federal custody claim lacks evidentiary support	State courts lack authority to issue writs against persons held under federal authority when local officers act under 287(g)	Where petition alleges custody under a detainer by a 287(g) sheriff, trial court must summarily deny writ and defer to federal courts
Whether trial court may adjudicate validity of immigration warrants/detainers or 287(g) implementation	Trial court may make a threshold factual inquiry into custody and facial validity	Such inquiries would intrude on federal supremacy over immigration	State courts cannot look behind a custodian’s claim of federal authority; validity and implementation are federal matters
Effect of sheriff’s failure to appear/raise defenses at trial	Sheriff waived jurisdictional defenses by not responding	Jurisdictional arguments may be raised anytime; refusal to comply does not forfeit right to appellate review	Petitioners’ filings disclosed the 287(g) claim, so waiver argument fails; state court still should have denied writs

Tarble’s Case, 80 U.S. 397 (1872) (state courts must refuse habeas relief when prisoner is held under claim or color of U.S. authority)
Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241 (1886) (state courts cannot discharge persons held by federal authority)
Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) (federal government has broad, exclusive authority over immigration and federal law preempts conflicting state action)
Nyquist v. Mauclet, 432 U.S. 1 (1977) (states may not interfere with federal control over immigration enforcement)
United States v. Sosa-Carabantes, 561 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 2009) (287(g) program deputizes local officers to perform federal immigration functions)
Chavez v. Carmichael, 262 N.C. App. 196 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018) (Court of Appeals opinion below addressing state-court jurisdiction over habeas petitions for detainees held under federal authority)