U.S. President Donald Trump has demanded that Minnesota provide increased assistance to federal immigration authorities seeking to detain and deport migrants. Federal officials have signaled that the deployment of thousands of armed agents into Minnesota cities would continue unless state and local officials grant greater cooperation. That surge of agents has coincided with violent incidents in Minneapolis that left two U.S. citizens dead and prompted nationwide protests.
This article lays out how Minnesota's state and county custody systems currently interact with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), where they do not cooperate, and the legal constraints state officials cite in resisting broader federal requests.
What the Trump administration is asking for
Tom Homan, the administration official sent to Minnesota and described by the White House as a "border czar," has framed the federal demand plainly: "Let us in the damn jail." At issue are routine ICE "detainer requests" that ask state or local jails and prisons to hold a person for up to 48 extra hours beyond the time they would otherwise be released so ICE can take custody for potential removal proceedings.
ICE has for years sought greater access to individuals held in local and state custody, including people who may already have deportation orders from the federal government. The detainer request is the primary mechanism ICE uses to try to extend custody briefly to arrange a transfer to federal agents.
How the state prison system responds
Minnesota's Department of Corrections (DOC) operates the state prison system where people convicted of serious crimes under state law typically serve their sentences. The DOC has published a "Combating DHS Misinformation" section on its website and states that it has a long-standing practice of cooperating with ICE within the boundaries set by Minnesota law.
Under state rules, the DOC notifies ICE whenever it takes into custody someone convicted of a felony who is not a U.S. citizen, even if no detainer request has yet been filed. The department reports that, as of early February, roughly 8,000 people were housed in state prisons and about 380 of those were not U.S. citizens.
The DOC says it complies with ICE detainer requests and coordinates with federal agents before a prisoner's scheduled release date to arrange transfer to federal custody. In 2025, the department reports that all 84 state prisoners sought by ICE were successfully transferred to federal custody at the end of their state sentences.
Local jails and the patchwork of cooperation
County jails in Minnesota are generally run by elected sheriffs and hold a more transient population than state prisons, including people who are arrested but not yet charged, those awaiting trial, and people serving brief sentences for lower-level offenses. This difference in population complicates how local facilities handle ICE requests.
Seven of Minnesota's 87 counties have formal cooperation agreements with ICE. Some sheriffs have worked with federal agents in a way similar to state prisons, allowing interviews and arranging transfers when appropriate. Others have adopted policies limiting or refusing cooperation, arguing that detaining people based on immigration requests can undermine public safety by deterring immigrants who are victims or witnesses from coming forward.
Hennepin County, which runs Minneapolis' main jail, offers an example of policy change at the local level. The office used to permit ICE interviews in custody, but that practice stopped in 2018 after the election of a new sheriff who adopted a non-cooperation policy. The current sheriff, Dawanna Witt, who was elected in 2022, has continued that approach.
Legal limits on complying with detainer requests
Legal constraints play a central role in Minnesota's response. The U.S. Constitution's Tenth Amendment bars the federal government from commanding state officers to enforce federal laws in a manner that would violate state sovereignty. While the federal government may request assistance, it cannot compel state or local law enforcement to act on its behalf.
In 2025, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison issued an advisory opinion to state prosecutors stating plainly that "Minnesota law prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from holding someone based on an immigration detainer if the person would otherwise be released from custody." Ellison explained that detaining someone for up to 48 hours at ICE's request is legally the equivalent of an arrest, and that neither Minnesota nor federal law authorizes local officials to make such an arrest on the basis of another agency's request without a warrant signed by a judge.
The attorney general cited a 2019 decision by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in Esparza v. Nobles County, which found that a sheriff's continued detention of an individual after the person was eligible for release under state law was likely unconstitutional. That ruling is part of the legal framework Minnesota officials reference when they decline to honor detainer requests that would extend custody beyond what state law permits.
What is unresolved
The confrontation between federal officials seeking broader access for deportation operations and Minnesota authorities pointing to existing cooperation and legal limits remains unsettled. State corrections officials maintain they notify ICE and arrange transfers for state prisoners sought by federal authorities, while a subset of county sheriffs formally collaborates with ICE and others refuse or limit cooperation for legal and public-safety reasons.
Federal officials have warned that the operation in Minnesota could continue or expand if they do not obtain more cooperation from state and local authorities, but state legal guidance and past court decisions constrain the scope of that cooperation.
Summary takeaway
Minnesota's state prison system says it already notifies ICE about noncitizen felony inmates and transfers those sought by federal agents at the end of state sentences. County-level practices vary from formal agreements in a small number of counties to explicit non-cooperation policies in others. State law and court rulings limit the ability of local officials to detain people based solely on ICE detainer requests without a judicial warrant.