Does ICE have authority to operate in Minnesota and under what legal statutes?
Executive summary
Federal immigration officers from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have the authority to operate in Minnesota under federal law as a federal agency charged with enforcing immigration statutes [1], but Minnesota state law and recent attorney general guidance place meaningful limits on how state and local actors may cooperate with ICE—particularly around detainers, arrests, and 287(g) partnerships [2] [3].
1. Federal authority: ICE’s statutory mandate and arrest powers
ICE is the federal agency tasked with enforcing immigration law and executing hundreds of federal statutes tied to immigration and cross‑border crime [1], and federal law generally grants federal officers authority to arrest for immigration violations—an authority that can, in practice, permit ICE agents to make arrests in Minnesota without relying on state actors [4].
2. Administrative vs. judicial warrants and limits on entry
ICE uses administrative warrants for civil immigration actions that are distinct from court‑issued judicial warrants, and reporting from the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office explains an administrative warrant does not by itself authorize forcible entry into private spaces the way a judicial search warrant does—organizations and individuals retain rights to challenge or inspect the type of warrant presented [5] [6]; local news reporting likewise notes ICE “warrants” do not permit free entry into homes and businesses [4].
3. Minnesota law: state limits on local enforcement and detainers
Minnesota law and an Attorney General opinion make clear that local law enforcement does not have authority to enforce federal immigration statutes and may face legal constraints in honoring ICE civil detainers; the AG’s review states sheriffs are not authorized under Minnesota law to enter 287(g) agreements absent county‑level approval and that Minnesota prohibits local officers from detaining persons solely on ICE requests or immigration status [2].
4. 287(g) agreements: delegation, local choice, and legal uncertainty
Federal 287(g) agreements allow ICE to delegate certain immigration enforcement tasks to local agencies, and some Minnesota counties have entered such agreements to identify and process immigrants for deportation [7]; however, the Attorney General notes counties—not individual sheriffs—may execute 287(g) pacts by county board resolution and that courts have not definitively resolved whether 287(g) workarounds fully comport with Minnesota statutory limits [2] [3].
5. Local practice: reluctance, information sharing, and custody of detainees
Many Minnesota sheriffs publicly emphasize they lack authority to enforce federal immigration law and therefore will not hold people solely on ICE detainers without judicial authorization, while still sharing information with federal authorities when requested [8]; separately, Minnesota’s Department of Corrections says it does not control whether local jails detain or house individuals for ICE custody, meaning facilities can and do sometimes hold persons under ICE control even if state actors have limited latitude [9].
6. Tensions and enforcement consequences: state guidance and potential prosecutions
The Minnesota Attorney General issued guidance after changes in federal policy, stressing the Tenth Amendment prevents coercing state or local authorities to enforce federal immigration law while warning that legal questions remain about cooperation under federal programs [3] [5]; at the same time, commentary and reporting note real political and legal tensions—ranging from local resistance to concern about federal overreach to even debates about whether state prosecutions could reach federal agents in rare circumstances—though that latter issue is contested and fact‑specific [10].
7. Bottom line: ICE can act in Minnesota, but mostly as a federal actor and with limits on local enforcement assistance
ICE has federal authority to operate and make immigration arrests in Minnesota under federal law [1] [4], but Minnesota statutes, AG guidance, and sheriff practices restrict state and local officials from independently detaining people at ICE’s request or being compelled to enforce federal immigration law absent appropriate legal processes or formal, county‑approved agreements—leaving practical enforcement in Minnesota shaped by a patchwork of federal actions, local choices, and ongoing legal uncertainties [2] [8] [7].