NC Supreme Court justices spar online over Border Patrol operations
READ MORE
U.S. Border Patrol in the Triangle
The U.S. Border Patrol sent agents to Raleigh, Durham, Cary and other parts of the Triangle Nov. 18 and 19 after a surge of enforcement in Charlotte. Here’s ongoing reporting from The News & Observer.
Expand All
Good morning and welcome to Under the Dome. I’m Kyle Ingram.
As U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents descended on Charlotte in Raleigh in recent weeks, politicians, advocates and residents shared outrage over their chaotic tactics — while others gleefully praised the operations as a long-awaited enforcement of immigration law.
But this week, an unlikely pair of characters entered the fray: two of North Carolina’s state Supreme Court justices.
It began on Wednesday when Justice Anita Earls, one of only two Democrats on the high court, released a statement on social media in which she called the operations a “political stunt” which “further erodes the public’s trust in the already broken justice system.”
She noted that agents have stopped lawful citizens and have stoked fear in communities, prompting parents to keep their kids home from school and others to avoid even shopping for food.
“We need strong public safety measures,” she wrote. “But this is not law enforcement intended to protect the public. Indeed, it is making the public less safe, in part because it has resulted in abandoning the effort to stop serious crimes. These agents are being pulled off cases investigating sex trafficking, child abuse, and terrorism.”
Over the weekend, The New York Times reported that the Department of Homeland Security has reassigned thousands of agents to immigration enforcement duties, including some who were previously investigating sexual crimes against children.
On Thursday, one of Earls’ Republican colleagues on the Supreme Court, Justice Phil Berger Jr., posted a response in which he called her statement “irresponsible.”
“What undermines public confidence is not lawful enforcement activity, but the growing trend of judges asserting their personal opinions and positions without facts, without parties before them, and without the neutrality their office demands,” he wrote on social media. “Judges are not political commentators, and we are not supposed to be advocates. When we speak as if we are, we blur boundaries.”
The rare digital spat between the two justices presents the latest development in an ongoing debate about the bounds of acceptable public discourse for members of the judiciary.
Earls herself has been targeted for her speech in the past, with the Judicial Standards Commission opening an investigation in 2023 into comments she made about diversity in the court system. Earls sued over the investigation, which was eventually dropped without any discipline.
Justice Allison Riggs, the other Democrat on the Supreme Court, was also cited in an ethics complaint in 2024 for running a campaign ad about abortion. Critics accused her of “staking out a position” in violation of the state’s Code of Judicial Conduct, but Riggs said people deserved to “cast an informed vote” and know about her values.
Berger Jr. has also been accused of ethical violations.
He’s faced frequent criticism for not recusing himself in cases involving his father, North Carolina Senate leader Phil Berger.
In one 2024 case regarding the structure of election boards, Berger Jr. did not recuse himself despite the fact that his father stood to gain additional powers depending on the court’s decision.
Other Republican justices, who have ruled that Berger Jr. need not recuse himself, have defended the decision by saying that the Senate leader was involved in the case in an official capacity only — not a personal one.
Berger Jr.’s term isn’t up till 2028, but Earls will be back on the ballot next fall as she seeks reelection to the high court. She’ll likely face off against Republican state Rep. Sarah Stevens, who is the only member of the GOP to announce a run for the seat so far.
Stevens herself was accused of a campaign finance violation in August when she accepted a campaign donation from a lobbyist despite serving as a sitting lawmaker. She later refunded the donation.
What else we’ve been working on
- Video from anguished friend shows federal agents seizing Wendell woman in Cary
- Why House Speaker Destin Hall wants the Border Patrol to come back to NC
- NC progressive faith leaders denounce Border Patrol actions in Triangle, Charlotte
- Durham students protest Border Patrol, ICE activity as threat to education
- Thom Tillis wants answers from Homeland Security on Operation Charlotte’s Web
- Triangle school communities try to support immigrants during Border Patrol operation
- Judges uphold NC districts used in 2024 election, but wait to rule on new map
- Federal judges appear skeptical of challenge to NC’s new congressional map
- What stocks are NC’s members of Congress buying and selling? See their trades
- NC’s Tim Moore missed disclosure deadline, traded Intel stock before Trump deal
- Do insider trading laws do enough to prevent NC lawmakers from losing public trust?
Thanks for reading Under the Dome
Know someone who’d like to get this email? Forward them this newsletter, or send them this link so they can sign up.
No longer want to receive this newsletter? Update your email preferences near the bottom of this email.
Please consider supporting local journalism with a subscription to The N&O. If you’re already a subscriber, thank you!
This story was originally published November 21, 2025 at 5:00 AM with the headline "NC Supreme Court justices spar online over Border Patrol operations."
