Which Minnesota counties have formal agreements to honor ICE detainers and how do their policies differ?
Executive summary
Seven to eight Minnesota counties are publicly listed by ICE as having formal 287(g)-style agreements to work with federal immigration officials — commonly named across reporting as Cass, Crow Wing, Freeborn, Itasca, Kandiyohi, Mille Lacs and Sherburne, with some outlets and ICE lists also including Jackson County — and those pacts vary from jail‑processing contracts to task‑force models that allow different levels of local participation in immigration enforcement [1] [2] [3]. State legal guidance from the Minnesota Attorney General constrains how those agreements operate in practice, saying sheriffs may not unilaterally enter 287(g) pacts and that Minnesota law generally bars holding people solely on civil ICE detainers, producing a patchwork of county practices and legal disputes [4] [5].
1. Who the state and ICE identify as having formal agreements
ICE’s public roster and multiple state and local reports repeatedly point to Cass, Crow Wing, Freeborn, Itasca, Kandiyohi, Mille Lacs and Sherburne counties as having agreements with ICE, and several news outlets and ICE documentation also list Jackson County, bringing the commonly reported total to seven or eight counties depending on the source referenced [1] [2] [3].
2. What “formal agreement” means in Minnesota’s context
These are 287(g)-style arrangements or jail enforcement contracts that differ by model: some are jail‑enforcement contracts allowing local deputies to identify and process removable immigrants in custody, while task‑force models permit wider deputization and investigative authority; ICE typically funds instructors and training while local agencies cover staffing and security costs [2] [6].
3. How county policies actually differ on the ground
In practice, counties vary: Sherburne, Freeborn and Kandiyohi have been described as more cooperative — with jail enforcement contracts that permit questioning of jailed individuals and short holds for ICE pickup — whereas major urban jails like Hennepin publicly do not honor administrative ICE detainers unless accompanied by a judicial order, illustrating divergent local rules about whether to hold someone beyond release time for ICE [7] [6] [8].
4. Legal constraints and county‑board authority versus sheriff actions
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison’s opinion concluded that county boards, not individual sheriffs, have the authority to enter 287(g) agreements and emphasized that such pacts do not authorize detention solely on a civil ICE request if state law would otherwise require release, a ruling that has prompted some counties to revisit or clarify past arrangements [4] [5].
5. Disputes, clarifications and litigation that shape policy differences
The AG opinion and local pushback have caused uncertainty: some northern counties recently clarified that previously claimed agreements were null or never board‑approved, Freeborn County has faced an ACLU lawsuit over its ICE detainer policy, and state corrections officials have pushed back against federal claims about mass detainer compliance — all of which highlight contested interpretations and enforcement differences across counties [9] [10] [1] [3].
6. Political and operational pressures that produce the patchwork
County responses reflect competing pressures: rural sheriffs report frustration over federal training delays and community pushback even as some local leaders pursue cooperation to handle detainee housing or local crime concerns, while state officials and advocacy groups push for tighter limits or bans on local participation in ICE enforcement, meaning the practical effect of a “formal agreement” can be narrowed by state law, local board votes, lawsuits and political mobilization [10] [11] [6].
7. What reporting does and does not establish
Reporting establishes which counties are listed by ICE and that multiple agreement models exist — and it documents legal constraints from the attorney general, county clarifications, litigation and differing jail practices such as Hennepin’s refusal to honor administrative detainers without a judge’s order — but sources do not provide a single up‑to‑date, authoritative matrix of each county’s operative policy after the AG opinion, leaving some real‑time questions about which specific counties continue active enforcement roles and under what internal protocols [7] [9] [4].