Why Minnesota sheriffs are reluctant to hold people for ICE

Minnesota county sheriffs are caught between growing demands from the Trump administration to help with deportation efforts and state court rulings that emphasize their limited role in federal immigration enforcement.

Richard Hodsdon, attorney for the Minnesota Sheriffs' Association, said county sheriffs may want to help U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, but they only have jurisdiction to enforce state and local laws. Federal immigration statutes, which are typically civil matters, are outside their legal authority.

Sheriffs can share information with federal officials, but, without a warrant, local jails legally cannot comply with “ICE detainers,” to hold people suspected of being in the country illegally.

“They are not the same as a court order; they are a request issued by an administrative agency,” Hodsdon said.

He noted that sheriffs in Anoka and Nobles counties were successfully sued for holding people beyond their judicial authority.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota brought those court cases after local law enforcement agencies violated residents' rights because they were suspected of being in the United States without proper authorization, said Julio Zelaya, advocacy director for the Minnesota ACLU.

“Our state constitution doesn’t allow for the enforcement of federal immigration laws,” Zelaya said. “We don’t want our state law enforcement holding people beyond what they otherwise have the power to do.”

Minnesota sheriffs have been advised of the legal jeopardy they could face for honoring immigration detainers' absent legal authorization, Hodsdon said. The exception is the few counties that already contract with ICE to hold people.

A recent directive from the Trump administration for the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate local officials who fail to comply with ICE requests created further confusion.

“It would be a quick investigation,” Hodsdon said. “[Sheriffs] don’t want to get sued.”

Yet, failing to comply with detainer requests has already landed a dozen Minnesota counties on ICE’s list of uncooperative jurisdictions. Being on the list led to a “sanctuary” designation from groups like the Center for Immigration Studies and Stephen Miller’s America First Legal, which some sheriffs say is unfair.

Sheriff Eric Wallen is frustrated that Lyon County is listed among the Minnesota jurisdictions that are not fully cooperative with immigration officials, saying his department is complying with the law.

“We want to fully cooperate with our law enforcement partners,” Wallen said. “We do not have the legal authority to enforce federal immigration laws.”

Lyon, like most Minnesota counties, already shares information if ICE requests it, so Wallen plans to reach out to federal officials in hopes of getting his county taken off the uncooperative list. He says being seen as having “sanctuary” policies, “doesn’t go over well with people here.”

David Zimmer, a former Hennepin County sheriff’s deputy who is now a policy fellow at the Center for the American Experiment, says federal authorities are aware of the legal conflicts sheriffs face and just want local authorities to help as much as they can.

“From what I can see, that’s all ICE is asking: Play ball with us,” Zimmer said.

There is no legal definition of a “sanctuary city” or county, so it can mean different things in different places. Minneapolis and St. Paul have separation ordinances that limit or prohibit residents being asked about their immigration status or sharing that information with federal authorities.

Local leaders have said their policies are in compliance with all state and federal laws, but Trump has threatened to cut public safety and other funding if they don’t cooperate.

State Rep. Sandra Feist, DFL-New Brighton, an immigration attorney, said the complexity of the law and demands of the Trump administration make it important for local leaders to get good legal advice.

“It’s really important these local jurisdictions don’t over comply or assume the threats they are receiving are accurate statements of the law,” Feist said. “They need to reach out to legal counsel and make sure they are asserting themselves and their rights.”