Does Hennipen county Minnesota refuse to hold illegal immigrants on detainers
Executive summary
Hennepin County’s established policy is not to honor ICE’s administrative detainer requests that ask the jail to hold people beyond their otherwise-scheduled release; the county will only comply when ICE provides a judicial warrant or other court-signed order authorizing continued detention [1] [2] [3]. That local practice aligns with a 2025 Minnesota Attorney General legal opinion holding that state law does not authorize state or local officials to detain someone solely on the basis of an immigration detainer, while Minnesota’s state prisons do coordinate with ICE when lawful detainer or warrant authority exists [4] [5].
1. Hennepin County’s policy: administrative detainers are declined, judicial orders honored
Public records and local advocacy documents show Hennepin’s sheriff’s office stopped honoring federal administrative detainers that request up to a 48- or 72-hour hold and instead requires a warrant signed by a judge before retaining someone for ICE pickup; the ACLU and county statements from 2014–2017 publicized this change [1] [6], and multiple local reporters and TV investigators have reiterated that Hennepin “does not honor ICE detainers” without a judicial order [2] [3].
2. Legal backing: Minnesota Attorney General says detainers alone don’t authorize detention
The Minnesota Attorney General’s formal 2025 opinion concluded that continued detention solely on the basis of an ICE detainer qualifies as an “arrest” and that Minnesota law does not authorize state or local officials to hold people based on such civil immigration requests; the opinion cites federal regulations and court decisions that treat ICE detainers as requests rather than commands [4] [7].
3. State prisons vs. county jails: important institutional differences
The Minnesota Department of Corrections repeatedly told the public it honors federal and local detainers in state prison custody and coordinates releases to ICE when lawful authority exists, distinguishing that practice from county jails where state law and local policies limit honoring administrative detainers [5] [3].
4. Federal criticism and disputed statistics: DHS versus state officials
The Department of Homeland Security and DHS officials have publicly blamed Minnesota jails for releasing dangerous people and have cited specific cases to argue Hennepin declined detainers [8] [9], but Minnesota state officials, the DOC and local reporting have disputed DHS numbers and said those federal tallies conflate county jails, state prisons and ICE custody and sometimes count people not actually in Minnesota prison custody [5] [10] [11].
5. Case examples and contested narratives: a messy public debate
DHS highlighted individual prosecutions and said certain suspects were released from Hennepin without ICE pickup [8], while local investigations and the DOC pushed back that many headline cases involved short jail stays, prior releases on bond, or detainers that were administrative rather than backed by judicial warrants—details that change whether Hennepin’s policy or state law was permissibly applied [2] [5].
6. Why the distinction matters: law, civil rights and policing trust
Advocates such as the ACLU framed Hennepin’s refusal to honor administrative detainers as a safeguard against unconstitutional deprivations of liberty and as a policy to protect community trust in policing, arguing that local officials lack authority under state law to detain people based only on ICE requests [1] [6] [7], while federal officials frame non-cooperation as a public-safety gap—an explicitly political and legal tension visible in recent public statements [10] [8].
7. Bottom line answer
Hennepin County’s practice is to refuse ICE administrative detainers that request holding someone beyond release absent a judge-signed warrant or comparable judicial authorization, a position reflected in county policy, ACLU statements, local reporting and the Minnesota Attorney General’s formal legal opinion, even as federal officials dispute some outcomes and counts [1] [2] [4] [5].