Which counties in Minnesota are refusing to hold illegal immigrants on detainers
Executive summary
The landscape in Minnesota is mixed: most state prisons and many county jails cooperate with ICE detainers, but some county jails—most notably Hennepin County—do not honor administrative detainers unless backed by a judge, and county practices otherwise vary across the state [1] [2] [3]. The Trump administration and DHS have publicly pressed Minnesota leaders to “honor” more than 1,360 detainers, a figure the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) and county surveys say is inaccurate and that masks local legal limits and divergent county policies [4] [5] [3].
1. Hennepin County singled out: administrative detainers declined
Reporting and local records show Hennepin County Jail does not honor ICE’s administrative detainers—requests to hold someone for up to 48 hours—unless the detainer is a judicially authorized warrant, a practice repeatedly cited in local investigations [1] [2]. That distinction between “administrative” detainers and judge-signed warrants is the practical hinge that explains why Hennepin will not routinely hand people to ICE on an administrative request [2].
2. Many counties cooperate; a few contract with ICE
While Hennepin is often named for refusing administrative detainers, other counties are more cooperative with ICE: reporting identifies Sherburne, Freeborn and Kandiyohi counties as examples that work with federal immigration authorities and even hold contracts to house ICE detainees [2]. The DOC says most sheriffs “really do fully honor ICE detainers and provide notifications,” underscoring that county practice is far from uniform across Minnesota [6].
3. Numbers dispute: DHS vs. Minnesota DOC
DHS and ICE have repeatedly cited roughly 1,360 individuals with ICE detainers in Minnesota custody, using that figure to demand broader cooperation from state and local officials [4] [7]. Minnesota’s DOC has publicly called those figures “inaccurate” and “unsupported,” releasing a fact sheet and survey data that put the state prison/detention total far lower—207 in state prisons and 94 reported from county surveys for a total of about 301—while challenging DHS to identify specific cases where detainers were ignored [5] [3].
4. Legal rationale and local advice: why counties tread carefully
County leaders and legal advisers explain why many sheriffs decline to honor administrative detainers: detainer requests are civil rather than criminal actions, and county attorneys have for years warned that holding people on purely administrative ICE requests without a judicial warrant risks legal exposure; counties that cooperate sometimes do so under contracts that include indemnities or reimbursements, while the federal government has said it will not indemnify counties that are sued for honoring detainers [8] [9]. That legal calculus produces different policies from county to county.
5. Political theater, federal pressure, and court pushback
The dispute has become highly politicized—DHS has framed noncooperation as dangerous and used its detainer counts to justify large-scale federal operations, while state officials accuse DHS of misinformation and potential data mismanagement [10] [5] [4]. The tension has spilled into courts: federal judges have intervened in disputes over ICE tactics in Minnesota and even ordered ICE leadership to explain actions in court, signaling that judicial oversight now shapes how detainers and enforcement operate on the ground [11] [12].
6. What can be concluded from available reporting
Based on the reporting provided, Hennepin County is the clearest, repeatedly documented example of a Minnesota county that does not honor ICE administrative detainers absent judicial authorization, while other counties range from full cooperation (including contractual ICE relationships) to cautious compliance based on legal advice; statewide claims about more than 1,300 detainers are disputed by Minnesota’s DOC and by county survey data, and the dispute reflects both legal nuance and political conflict rather than a single uniform policy [1] [2] [3] [5].