NC Supreme Court Justice Earls Exposes Partisan Bias, Voters Warned

A North Carolina Supreme Court justice has once again made headlines for partisan remarks about federal immigration enforcement, prompting sharp criticism from a GOP colleague and fresh questions about impartiality on the bench. The exchange began with public posts condemning CBP and ICE operations and escalated into a debate over what judicial neutrality should look like when judges comment on active political issues. As candidates opened filing for elections, the controversy resurfaced and promises of impartiality from the justice in question were met with skepticism. This article reviews the public statements, past activism, and the political stakes for the state high court.

The flap began when one justice publicly attacked federal immigration sweeps, calling them a “violation of constitutional rights” and suggesting they distracted agents from crimes such as sex trafficking and child abuse. The complaint included an allegation that the administration was using “immigrants” as “scapegoats,” language that amplified partisan tensions and drew immediate pushback. Those comments came in a public forum where judicial restraint is usually expected, and they set off a chain reaction of responses from colleagues and commentators. The episode highlighted how social media posts from judges can inflame public trust issues even when they are framed as matters of principle.

Conservative Associate Justice Phil Berger, Jr. fired back with a direct rebuke, writing, “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.” That rebuke framed the dispute as less about the enforcement actions themselves and more about the role of judges in preserving the appearance of fairness. Berger’s point emphasizes that when judges step into policy debates outside courtroom proceedings, they risk politicizing the judiciary. For many conservatives, his words landed as a clear reminder that the rule of law depends on neutral decision-making, not public advocacy from the bench.

The timing intensified the controversy. The first day to file for election and reelection arrived on December 1, and reporters asked the justice about her colleague’s public criticism. Her response underscored her willingness to speak out and reminded observers of her long track record of activism prior to joining the court. That answer was captured in an embedded post and circulated widely, reinforcing partisan perceptions instead of calming them. The public moment made it clear that judicial behavior in campaign seasons will be scrutinized heavily by voters and opposing campaigns.

Scrutiny of this justice’s conduct is not new. She has faced prior ethics questions tied to political statements and affiliations, raising concerns about whether those past activities compromise the appearance of neutrality today. Even if disclosure or ethics rules are not triggered, the court of public opinion weighs those red flags when evaluating a judge’s fitness to adjudicate without bias. For many conservatives, repeated partisan commentary from a sitting justice simply confirms preexisting worries about ideological influence in judicial decisions.

Her public profile before serving on the bench includes founding and leading a prominent advocacy group that describes its work as advancing racial and social justice through legal efforts. That background is part of the narrative opponents point to when arguing she approaches cases with a particular ideological lens. The justice has cited service on state boards and task forces related to criminal justice reform, which supporters view as experience and critics see as political activism. Those dual readings of her record make impartiality claims difficult to accept for skeptics on the right.

Justice Earls is the founder of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, a nonprofit dedicated to advancing racial and social justice through legal advocacy, where she served as Executive Director for a decade.

[…]

Justice Earls has also served on the North Carolina State Board of Elections, the North Carolina Equal Access to Justice Commission, and Co-Chaired Governor Cooper’s Task Force on Racial Equity in Criminal Justice.

After filing for reelection, the justice posted that “Upholding my oath of office to rule without fear or favor has been my guiding light every day on the Court. ” That exact phrase sits awkwardly alongside her history of public advocacy and partisan commentary, creating a credibility problem for critics who demand consistent judicial neutrality. Republicans argue that vows of impartiality must match conduct, not rhetoric; otherwise, the promise to adjudicate without prejudice rings hollow. That tension will be central to any campaign aimed at unseating or defending her in the next election cycle.

The current composition of the court matters politically: the bench has a GOP majority and Democrats are working to regain control before upcoming census-driven redistricting. For conservatives, defeating this justice in 2026 is framed as an essential step to preserve a judiciary that practices restraint and follows the law without ideological tilt. The stakes go beyond one seat, because control of the state Supreme Court influences how election maps, criminal cases, and state policies are reviewed in the years ahead. Voters and parties will watch this contest closely as part of a broader fight over the direction of state governance.