Has MN not turned over inmates in jails that should be deported?
Executive summary
Minnesota has not uniformly refused to turn over inmates to ICE, but the reality is nuanced: the state Department of Corrections says it notifies ICE and transfers people after they serve required custodial portions of sentences, while hundreds of county jails have declined or ignored many ICE detainer requests—fueling federal claims that Minnesota is “shielding” deportable people [1] [2] [3]. Federal and state counts differ sharply, and legal and policy constraints explain much of the gap rather than a simple unilateral refusal to hand people over [4] [5].
1. The core dispute: federal counts vs. state practices
DHS and ICE have publicly asserted large totals—citing figures such as 1,360 people they say are subject to detainers in Minnesota custody—and have demanded broader local cooperation [3] [4], but Minnesota officials dispute those numbers and say the Department of Corrections follows law and routine practices for transfers, notifying ICE and arranging pick‑ups when sentences end [4] [5].
2. Jails and detainers: hundreds declined or ignored
Independent reporting finds that local jails in Minnesota have declined or ignored hundreds of more than 2,000 detainers filed since the start of the Trump administration, and that only about 30 percent of people ICE detained in Minnesota last year were turned over by local jails and prisons—a lower share than in most other states—showing substantial noncooperation at the county level [2].
3. Prisons operate differently from county jails
State prisons, which house people serving sentences longer than one year, operate under statutory and policy constraints that generally require inmates to serve custodial portions of their sentences (commonly two‑thirds) before transfer; the DOC says it notifies ICE and routinely transfers people upon release, and the DOC disputed DHS’s large headline numbers as “categorically false,” noting only a few hundred noncitizens in state prison population counts [1] [5] [4].
4. Federal narrative: “worst of the worst” and political pressure
Federal officials and White House allies have framed Minnesota as letting the “worst of the worst” roam free and have pressed governors and mayors to allow greater access; ICE and DHS officials publicly criticized local leaders and called for jail access, and ICE has led enforcement operations in the state [6] [3] [7]. Yet local reporters and records reviews show some of the cases touted by federal officials were more complicated—some people had not been incarcerated in Minnesota recently or had sparse Minnesota criminal records—calling into question blanket characterizations [6] [8].
5. Legal and policy reasons for non‑compliance at county level
Minnesota’s legal landscape constrains county practices: an opinion from Attorney General Keith Ellison says local law enforcement cannot hold people solely on civil immigration detainer requests, and several counties have interpreted state law and liability concerns to justify declining ICE detainers—an explanation state officials point to when disputing federal accusations [9] [5].
6. Parties pushing different agendas and where reporting limits remain
Federal officials push for more access to increase deportation transfers; immigrant‑rights groups warn that jail transfers and increased local collaboration will lead to family separations and harm to long‑term residents [10]. Reporting establishes the disagreement and provides counts from both sides, but it cannot fully resolve which specific detainers reflect actionable deportable convictions without case‑by‑case records beyond the available aggregated figures [2] [4].
7. Bottom line: yes, but it’s complicated
Answering whether “Minnesota has not turned over inmates that should be deported” requires nuance: Minnesota state prisons say they do turn people over when legally required and dispute DHS totals [4] [5], while many county jails have declined or ignored hundreds of ICE detainers—so Minnesota as a whole is not systematically handing over all detainer requests, yet the divergence is driven by legal constraints, differing definitions of who “should” be deported, and sharp disagreements over the underlying counts [2] [9].