In mid-November, a heated exchange unfolded between two justices of the North Carolina Supreme Court amid CBP and ICE operations in cities such as Charlotte and Raleigh. This public clash attracted considerable attention.

Senior Associate Justice Anita Earls, a Democrat, took to social media platform X to criticize the operations, labeling them as a “violation of constitutional rights.” She argued that these actions diverted federal agents from addressing critical issues like sex trafficking and child abuse, despite the fact that among those arrested were individuals suspected of such crimes. Earls further claimed, without presenting evidence, that the Trump administration was unjustly targeting immigrants as “scapegoats.”

Earls’s remarks included a statement that such political maneuvers erode public trust in an already flawed justice system, a comment that drew scrutiny for its perceived irony. In response, Conservative Associate Justice Phil Berger, Jr., countered by asserting that true damage to public confidence stems not from legal enforcement actions, but from judges who express personal opinions without factual basis or judicial impartiality. He stressed the importance of maintaining the neutrality expected of their positions.

“This type of political stunt further erodes the public’s trust in the already broken justice system,” Earls also wrote, displaying a staggering lack of self-awareness. Conservative Associate Justice Phil Berger, Jr., responded by writing that “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.”