Could a county sheriff’s words cross the line into intimidation over a critical immigration vote?

North Carolina State Rep. Carla Cunningham, a Charlotte Democrat, has accused Mecklenburg County Sheriff Garry McFadden of attempting to pressure her against supporting a bill to enforce cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Cunningham's Claims of Intimidation Surface

The allegation centers on a phone call before a July 2025 vote to override Gov. Josh Stein’s veto of House Bill 318 (HB 318), which mandates sheriffs honor ICE detainers by holding unauthorized migrants for an additional 48 hours, according to the Daily Caller. Cunningham, the only Democrat to cross party lines, helped Republicans pass the override, turning the bill into law and drawing ire from her party.

The issue has sparked intense debate over political pressure and the role of local law enforcement in federal immigration policy.

Cunningham, a self-described moderate Democrat, claims McFadden implied she could face harm if she backed the bill. Her account of the call suggests a veiled threat, raising questions about whether elected officials are free to vote their conscience on divisive issues like immigration enforcement.

“One of the first things he said was that the citizens of Mecklenburg County would come at me,” Cunningham recounted. That kind of language isn’t just heated rhetoric—it hints at a dangerous line where disagreement turns into intimidation. If true, it’s a chilling reminder of how far some will go to protect sanctuary policies.

McFadden's History with ICE Policies

McFadden’s stance on ICE has been contentious since he took office in December 2018. He quickly ended cooperation with detainer requests, a move that ICE leadership criticized in August 2019 after the release of several unauthorized migrants with criminal records from county custody. His approach has consistently prioritized local control over federal mandates.

Yet, in November 2025, McFadden expressed frustration with Customs and Border Protection for not directly informing him about enforcement actions in his jurisdiction, dubbed Operation Charlotte’s Webb. He suggested such operations sow fear rather than safety. This contradiction—resisting ICE while demanding communication—paints a complex picture of his priorities.

A spokesperson for McFadden declined to comment on Cunningham’s allegations, stating, “The Sheriff is aware of the removal petition and allegations made, however we are not releasing a statement at this time.” Silence on such a serious claim only fuels speculation. If there’s nothing to hide, why not clarify the nature of that phone call?

HB 318 Sparks Political Firestorm

HB 318, introduced by North Carolina House GOP leadership in March 2025, aimed to build on prior anti-sanctuary laws. After passing the Republican-majority legislature, Gov. Stein vetoed it, citing constitutional concerns. The override vote became a flashpoint, with Cunningham’s support proving decisive.

Cunningham faced immense pressure from her party to oppose the override, with McFadden’s alleged call standing out as particularly alarming. She reached out to family, staff, and the General Assembly for support afterward, even seeking legal counsel to navigate the fallout. This wasn’t just politics as usual—it felt personal.

The North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation is already examining separate allegations against McFadden, including employee retaliation and misuse of county resources. These broader claims, confirmed in January, add weight to concerns about his conduct. When a sheriff’s actions repeatedly raise red flags, it’s time for accountability.

Immigration Policy Divides Communities

Immigration enforcement remains a deeply divisive issue, with HB 318 exposing the rift between state and local priorities. While supporters argue it ensures public safety by preventing the release of unauthorized migrants with criminal charges, critics see it as overreach that erodes trust in law enforcement. The debate isn’t just academic—it shapes real lives.

Cunningham stands by her vote, emphasizing her commitment to law enforcement and constituent safety. Her defiance of party lines has cost her politically, with Gov. Stein now supporting a primary challenger against her. That’s the price of principle in a polarized system, but it’s a stand worth admiring.

McFadden’s alleged words—“but you’re in my county”—as Cunningham recalls, carry an unsettling undertone of territorial power. If a sheriff can imply refusal of protection over a policy disagreement, what does that mean for the rule of law? It’s a question that demands answers, not evasion.