Not that she hasn’t done this before, but recent comments from North Carolina Senior Associate Justice Anita Earls have given us quite the preview of how the 2026 race for the seat she holds is likely to play out.
Charlotte’s Web, the federal immigration enforcement operation that started in the Charlotte area in mid-November and involves members of ICE and the border patrol has netted more than 400 arrests so far. Some of those taken into custody have been violent criminal offenders with long rap sheets.
Democrats in Congress and here in North Carolina have opposed the sweeps, and Charlotte City Council Democrats acted quickly in response to the arrests made by allocating financial resources to help the illegal immigrant families that have been impacted so far.
About a week into the operation, Earls, a Democrat, decided to share her two cents on X, calling Charlotte’s Web a “violation of constitutional rights” and one that has supposedly taken federal agents away from solving crimes like sex trafficking and child abuse (as if those types of criminal illegal immigrants are not among the over 400 arrests made).
Earls also accused the Trump administration, without evidence, of using “immigrants” as “scapegoats.”
“This type of political stunt further erodes the public’s trust in the already broken justice system,” Earls also declared, apparently not realizing that the political stunt she was engaging in with her wildly partisan statement on an issue that could one day soon play out before the North Carolina Supreme Court did far more to erode public trust in the judicial system than the operation she was condemning.
Her conservative colleague on the state’s highest court, Associate Justice Phil Berger Jr., responded accordingly on X.
“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,” Berger wrote. “Judges are not political commentators, and we are not supposed to be advocates. When we speak as if we are, we blur boundaries.”
Two weeks later, Berger’s point was proven by Earls herself on the day she filed to run for reelection. Responding to a question about Berger’s remarks, Earls stated, “I believe he’s confused about the difference between what we do when we’re ruling on issues that come before us in the court … versus what we do as political candidates.”
Trust me, no one is “confused” as to what’s actually going on here. Not Earls, not Berger and certainly not any voters who remember Earls’ history of partisan statements and actions while on the bench, some of which prompted an ethics investigation from the state Judicial Standards Commission.
Earls’ likely general election opponent next year, state Rep. Sarah Stevens (R-Surry), also isn’t confused. “(Earls) seems to want to be a rule maker instead of follow the rules,” Stevens said after she filed to run in the state Supreme Court race.
Last week, Charlotte was hit with yet another stabbing on the light rail system. Not only is the suspect, Oscar Gerardo Solorzano-Garcia, a repeat offender, but he is also (surprise, surprise) a twice-deported illegal immigrant. ICE “has lodged an arrest detainer” against him.
In light of that news, Berger asked the following question on X: “I wonder if any member of the NC judiciary has thoughts on this?” So far, there has been no comment from Earls, which, when one takes into consideration what she said about Charlotte’s Web, is a statement in and of itself.
North Carolina native Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym Sister Toldjah and is a media analyst and regular contributor to RedState and Legal Insurrection.
