How do state and local jails report ICE detainers and custody transfers, and what discrepancies have arisen in Minnesota?
Executive summary
State and local facilities handle federal ICE detainer requests differently: state prisons in Minnesota say they notify and coordinate transfers with ICE and document transfers, while many county jails, constrained by state law and local policy, cannot legally hold people solely on civil detainers [1] [2]. A public clash between DHS and Minnesota’s Department of Corrections centers on conflicting counts — DHS says 1,360 people were subject to detainers in Minnesota custody, while a statewide survey by Minnesota DOC finds roughly 301 (207 in prisons, 94 in county jails) and documents routine coordination for transfers from state prisons [3] [4] [5].
1. How detainers are supposed to be reported and acted on
ICE issues civil “detainer” requests that ask local jails and prisons to hold an individual up to 48 hours beyond release so ICE can take custody; in practice, the request is a federal civil immigration enforcement tool, not a criminal warrant, and jurisdictions vary in whether and how they honor it [5] [3]. Minnesota law requires the Department of Corrections to notify ICE when a noncitizen enters state custody, and DOC officials say they “coordinate every custody transfer with ICE” and verify transportation arrangements before release [1] [6].
2. State prison practice in Minnesota: DOC’s claim of full cooperation
Minnesota DOC has publicly asserted that it honors ICE detainers and coordinated transfers — noting 84 direct transfers from state prisons to ICE custody in 2025 and maintaining a fact sheet and web page to rebut DHS’s public statements [5] [7] [1]. DOC Commissioner Paul Schnell and press materials argue the department not only notifies ICE but “coordinates every custody transfer” and that DHS has not pointed to any DOC instance of noncompliance [1] [2].
3. County jails and the legal limits on holding people for detainers
By contrast, county jails are governed by a separate legal regime: Minnesota Attorney General guidance and state law limit local agencies from holding people solely on civil immigration detainer requests, and DOC acknowledges that compliance at the county level “varies,” especially in large jurisdictions such as Hennepin County [2] [5]. DOC’s statewide survey counted 94 people with ICE detainers in county jails, underscoring divergence between state prison records and local jail practice [8].
4. The numerical dispute: DHS vs. Minnesota records
DHS publicly released a 1,360 figure and accused Minnesota officials of releasing hundreds of “criminal illegal aliens,” while Minnesota’s direct tally came to roughly 301; DOC officials say DHS’s list includes people never in Minnesota DOC custody, people held years or decades ago, transfers already made to ICE, and individuals in other states or ICE-only custody — suggesting data-management or jurisdictional mismatch problems in DHS counts [3] [4] [8]. Multiple newsroom examinations found many names on DHS lists lacked recent Minnesota criminal records or had not been in state prisons recently, supporting the DOC contention that DHS conflated different custody types [6] [9].
5. Motivations, messaging and the broader enforcement sweep
The dispute is both administrative and political: DHS framed its numbers to press governors and mayors to “honor” detainers while Minnesota pushed back with fact sheets and a public communications campaign to rebut what it calls misleading claims [3] [1]. Observers note possible incentives on both sides — federal agencies rallying political pressure to expand access and state officials defending legal limits and local autonomy; internal ICE planning to expand detention capacity in the region suggests federal appetite for broader enforcement infrastructure that could be used if access increases [10] [11].
6. What is confirmed, what remains unclear, and why it matters
Reporting confirms: DOC says it coordinated dozens of prison-to-ICE transfers in 2025 and produced a statewide inventory showing about 301 people with detainers, while DHS insists the figure is 1,360 and has publicized a “worst of the worst” list [5] [4] [3]. Unclear from available reporting is the exact methodology DHS used to compile the 1,360 figure and whether that dataset double-counted, included out-of-state custody, or reflected historical pickups — DHS has not publicly reconciled case-level discrepancies that DOC requests be identified for review [4] [1]. The gap matters because it shapes public perception, intergovernmental cooperation, and potential expansion of detention or transfer operations in Minnesota and beyond [10] [11].