How do ICE detainers work and what legal weight do they carry in Minnesota?
Executive summary
ICE detainers are administrative requests from federal immigration authorities asking state or local jails to hold an individual for a short period so ICE can assume custody; under federal law ICE has authority to arrest and detain people for immigration violations, but detainers are civil and often lack judicial signatures [1] [2]. In Minnesota, recent formal opinions and case law make clear that state and local officials lack independent state-law authority to hold someone solely on an ICE detainer, and 287(g) agreements do not change that baseline [3] [2] [4].
1. What an ICE detainer actually is and how it functions in practice
An ICE detainer is an administrative form or request—often brief and non-judicial—asking a local jail to keep a person for up to 48 hours beyond when state or local custody would otherwise end so ICE can take the person into federal custody, and courts and practitioners treat detainers as civil immigration instruments rather than criminal arrest warrants [2] [5]. Detainers frequently accompany administrative documents such as ICE Forms I-200 or I-205 and, unlike traditional arrest warrants, are typically not signed by judges; critics and some local officials therefore characterize them as “very generic” and insufficient alone to justify additional detention under state law [6] [5].
2. Federal authority versus local execution: the divide
Federal immigration authorities have statutory power to arrest and detain individuals for immigration violations, and ICE agents can operate under administrative warrants in many enforcement contexts, a fact courts and commentators recognize even as questions swirl about the scope of those powers in private homes and protests [1] [7]. However, the practical effect of a detainer depends on cooperation from state or local custodians: ICE lacks a general power to force state jails to hold people; instead, detainers are a request that historically relied on local and county compliance to function as intended [2].
3. Minnesota law: explicit limits and recent formal opinions
The Minnesota Attorney General’s Office has issued formal legal opinions concluding that Minnesota law does not authorize state or local officials to hold or arrest someone based solely on an immigration detainer, and that doing so can meet the legal definition of an “arrest” triggering constitutional protections [3] [2]. The AG’s later opinion extended that analysis to 287(g) arrangements—finding county boards, not sheriffs, may approve such agreements and that officers acting under 287(g) do not gain greater state-law authority to detain someone solely on a detainer [4] [8].
4. Conflicting practices on the ground and federal pressure
Despite these state-level limits, cooperation in Minnesota is uneven: the Department of Corrections notifies ICE and some county jails house federal detainees under contract, while other counties refuse to hold people solely on ICE requests, prompting DHS public complaints that Minnesota is not cooperating with detainers [6] [9] [10]. The federal government has also challenged Minnesota practices in court and policy arenas; for example, federal litigation over ICE tactics and a temporary appeals court stay in Minnesota highlight friction between federal enforcement priorities and local/state legal constraints [11].
5. Legal implications for detainees and for law enforcement
Because detainers are civil and often non‑judicial, Minnesota officials who extend custody solely on that basis risk running afoul of state prohibitions and constitutional limits—Minnesota case law and the AG opinion treat prolonged custody at ICE’s request as an “arrest,” which requires lawful state authorization that the legislature has not supplied [2] [3]. Conversely, the federal government argues that broader cooperation would enable ICE to effect removals more efficiently, and ICE continues to use administrative warrants and other tools where it believes federal authority applies, creating a practical tension between enforcement goals and state statutory and constitutional protections [1] [7] [10].
6. Bottom line and open questions
The bottom line is clear in Minnesota legal guidance: an ICE detainer by itself lacks the legal weight under Minnesota law to compel detention by state or local actors, and 287(g) participation does not alter that rule absent explicit statutory authorization or different local approvals [3] [4] [8]. What remains unsettled in the public record is the full scope of federal operational changes—such as reliance on administrative warrants or aggressive entry tactics—and how future litigation or legislative action might recalibrate the balance between federal immigration authority and Minnesota’s legal limits [7] [11].