Which Minnesota counties currently allow ICE agents to question jail inmates and hold them for up to 48 hours under jail enforcement contracts?
Executive summary
Eight Minnesota counties are listed in state and local reporting as having active agreements with ICE that include the “jail enforcement” or 287(g)/BOA-style models that permit ICE access to interview jailed people and authorize local staff to assist in civil immigration enforcement; those counties are Cass, Sherburne, Freeborn, Crow Wing, Itasca, Jackson and Mille Lacs, plus Kandiyohi, according to state reporting and the attorney general’s advisory [1] [2]. Those contracts are described in coverage as allowing jail staff to identify and process removable immigrants and, under some jail enforcement models, to detain individuals for short periods (commonly cited as up to 48 hours) for ICE transfer/processing [2] [3].
1. The short answer — which counties are involved
State-level reporting that compiles ICE contract listings and the Minnesota attorney general’s advisory identifies eight county agencies that have formal agreements: Cass County, Sherburne County, Freeborn County, Crow Wing County, Itasca County, Jackson County, Mille Lacs County and Kandiyohi County [1]. Multiple local outlets and advocacy reporting repeat those same county names as the jurisdictions with active models that permit jail-based immigration questioning and detention functions [2] [4].
2. What those contracts actually permit — and where “48 hours” comes from
Journalistic descriptions and contract summaries distinguish models, but the “jail enforcement” model noted in Minnesota reporting allows deputies to identify and process removable immigrants in custody and includes language authorizing detention and transfer for immigration purposes; advocacy groups and local reporting say some jail enforcement contracts permit detaining inmates up to 48 hours to facilitate ICE interviews and pickup [2] [3]. Coverage of the Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA) draft language says counties entering such ICE contracts would be required to give ICE “reasonable access” to interview detainees — language consistent with the described 48‑hour holding window used in prior agreements elsewhere [3].
3. Discrepancies in counts and why different outlets report five, seven or eight counties
Not all outlets use the same counting method: a Minnesota House summary referenced five counties with current contracts, while other audits and the attorney general’s advisory list seven or eight depending on whether task‑force, warrant‑service or jail‑enforcement variants are grouped together [5] [6] [1]. Reporting from MinnPost and the Minnesota Reformer emphasizes that county-by-county practices vary and that some counties’ arrangements are long‑standing while others have more limited task‑force roles, which explains divergent totals [7] [2].
4. The legal constraint Minnesota law imposes on detainers and county practice
Multiple news outlets and the state attorney general’s guidance stress that Minnesota law prohibits local authorities from holding someone solely on an ICE administrative detainer if they would otherwise be released — even where a county has an ICE agreement — and the AG’s opinion also clarifies that county boards, not sheriffs acting alone, are the entities that can enter some ICE contracts [7] [1] [6]. That legal limit coexists with BOA/287(g)-style contract language that contemplates short additional custody for processing, creating tension that is central to lawsuits and legislative proposals cited by reporters [7] [5].
5. Context: enforcement surge, court fights and political pushback
The county contract landscape sits amid a larger federal operation and litigation: federal immigration enforcement in Minnesota has prompted judges to admonish ICE for noncompliance with court orders and spurred proposed state legislation to bar local ICE contracts, while DHS and the White House push for more “commonsense cooperation” [8] [9] [10]. Local reporting also records community pushback in counties clarifying or rescinding cooperation, underscoring that contracts and practice remain politically fraught and legally contested [11] [2].
6. How to read these lists: fact, nuance and limits of available reporting
The most direct, source‑based list of counties with ICE agreements comes from the attorney general’s advisory and contemporaneous reporting naming Cass, Sherburne, Freeborn, Crow Wing, Itasca, Jackson, Mille Lacs and Kandiyohi as jurisdictions with contracts of the 287(g)/jail‑enforcement/task‑force variety [1] [2]; at the same time, state law and follow‑up reporting emphasize that compliance with ICE detainers varies and that counties do not uniformly hold people the full 48 hours or operate identically [7] [6]. Where reporting diverges, those differences reflect how reporters classify models and the evolving legal and political developments rather than simple factual error.