Roy Cooper is asking North Carolina voters to send him to the U.S. Senate. But his record as governor is putting his immigration policies back under the microscope — particularly his repeated vetoes of legislation requiring greater cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities.
Cooper vetoed legislation in 2019 and again in 2022 that sought to require sheriffs to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in certain cases involving people whose immigration status was unclear. In 2024, he again vetoed legislation containing ICE-cooperation requirements, only for lawmakers to override the veto and enact the measure into law.
That record is now colliding with one of the biggest issues in the 2026 Senate campaign: whether North Carolina should prioritize cooperation with federal immigration authorities when potentially removable immigrants are arrested or held in local custody.
And Cooper's own words make his position difficult to misunderstand.
When he vetoed the 2019 legislation, Cooper accused Republicans of “scoring partisan political points” and “using fear to divide North Carolina.”
He also argued that the measure would “weaken law enforcement in North Carolina by mandating sheriffs to do the job of federal agents.”
That was Cooper's justification.
But Republicans have spent years making the opposite case: local law enforcement should not be prevented from cooperating with federal authorities when an individual is already in custody and subject to an immigration detainer.
The Cases That Turned Immigration Into a Public-Safety Fight
The controversy became particularly intense around cases involving criminal defendants who had immigration detainers.
The material surrounding Cooper's record cites hundreds of cases in which people with ICE detainers were released from North Carolina custody during his tenure. Among those cases were individuals accused of serious offenses, including sex crimes, kidnapping and homicide.
One case involved a man in Durham County who was arrested on a robbery charge involving a dangerous weapon and was released despite an ICE detainer. Months later, he was accused of killing his girlfriend by strangulation. He fled North Carolina and was eventually captured in Louisiana.
Another case involved a previously deported immigrant who was released in Mecklenburg County after being arrested on charges including first-degree rape and indecent liberties with a minor.
In Buncombe County, an immigrant was released after being charged with statutory sex offenses involving an 11-year-old girl.
These cases do not establish that Cooper personally ordered any individual release, nor do they mean every person subject to an ICE detainer is dangerous. But they illustrate the stakes of the policy dispute: what should happen when local authorities have someone in custody and federal immigration officials request that the person be held?
That question has become central to the Republican case against Cooper.
Cooper Vetoed — Republicans Overrode
The political fight did not end with Cooper's vetoes.
In 2019, he rejected House Bill 370, which would have required compliance with immigration detainers and administrative warrants. His veto message explicitly argued that local sheriffs should not be forced to perform the work of federal immigration agents.
Three years later, Cooper vetoed another bill requiring sheriffs to notify ICE in certain cases involving people charged with serious offenses whose immigration status could not be established.
Then came 2024.
House Bill 10 included provisions requiring ICE cooperation, including procedures for determining whether certain people in custody were subject to federal immigration enforcement. Cooper vetoed the measure.
Lawmakers overrode him.
The legislation became law in November 2024 despite Cooper's objections.
So the record is not simply a matter of campaign rhetoric. It is documented in the official actions of the North Carolina governor's office and the state legislature.
Cooper repeatedly opposed the legislation.
Republican lawmakers repeatedly pushed it.
And eventually, they had enough votes to overcome his veto.
Now Law Enforcement Is Taking Sides
The immigration record is becoming particularly relevant because Cooper is now running against Republican Michael Whatley for the U.S. Senate.
Whatley has made law enforcement and border security central parts of his campaign, while Cooper is attempting to return to statewide office after eight years as governor.
Several major law-enforcement organizations have endorsed Whatley, including the North Carolina Fraternal Order of Police and the North Carolina Police Benevolent Association. The National Border Patrol Council has also endorsed Whatley.
That creates an uncomfortable contrast for Cooper.
The former governor once argued that requiring sheriffs to cooperate with ICE would interfere with local law enforcement. Now, his Republican opponent is campaigning directly on support from law-enforcement organizations.
Whatley has seized on that divide, presenting himself as the candidate who will support officers and enforce immigration laws rather than restricting cooperation with federal authorities.
The political argument is straightforward: if federal immigration law exists, should local governments cooperate with federal officers when someone already in their custody is subject to an immigration detainer?
North Carolina Republicans have answered yes.
Cooper repeatedly answered no to legislation designed to mandate that cooperation.
The 2026 Race Is Tightening
The issue arrives as the Senate contest becomes increasingly competitive.
A September Quantus Insights poll of likely voters found Cooper at 48.4% and Whatley at 43.3%, with the remainder undecided or supporting other candidates.
That poll is only one measurement and does not determine the eventual outcome. But it shows why Cooper's governing record is receiving renewed attention as voters begin comparing the two candidates.
For Republicans, immigration is not merely an abstract Washington issue. It is tied to border security, criminal enforcement, federalism and the responsibility of government to protect citizens.
For Cooper, his veto record reflects a longstanding disagreement over the proper role of local law enforcement in federal immigration enforcement.
Those decisions now belong to the political record.
And as Cooper asks North Carolinians for another statewide vote, voters have an opportunity to examine exactly what he did when he had the power to decide the issue himself.
Because the question is bigger than one bill or one veto.
It is whether immigration laws should actually be enforced — and whether local officials should cooperate when federal authorities come calling.
That is a question North Carolina voters will have to answer for themselves.
