The Minnesota Attorney General’s Office has issued a formal legal opinion clarifying that county sheriffs in Minnesota do not have the authority to independently enter into 287(g) agreements with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Instead, the authority to enter such agreements rests with county boards of commissioners.
According to the opinion, “Minnesota law does not permit sheriffs to enter into 287(g) agreements with ICE unilaterally and that the authority to enter into such agreements rests with county boards of commissioners.” The statement also notes that “287(g) agreements do not permit law enforcement agencies to detain individuals solely on the basis of a civil ICE detainer request if state law does not otherwise authorize law enforcement to detain them.”
This legal guidance was provided at the request of Ramsey County Attorney John Choi. He asked for clarification on whether sheriffs could engage in these agreements and whether such arrangements would allow local law enforcement officers to hold individuals based only on immigration detainers from ICE.
The Attorney General’s Office reviewed state statutes regarding contracts by sheriffs, noting that while sheriffs can contract for police services with towns and cities, there is no provision allowing them similar contracting power with federal agencies. The opinion interprets this omission as intentional by lawmakers.
Additionally, the office examined Minnesota’s Joint Exercise of Powers Act, which allows governmental entities to cooperate if they share common powers. Since enforcing immigration law is not a power granted to sheriffs absent a 287(g) agreement, they cannot meet this requirement. However, an exception exists: under Subdivision 8 of the Act, county boards may perform services or functions on behalf of other government units even if those are not powers shared in common—meaning county boards can vote to enter into 287(g) agreements.
The opinion also addresses whether having a valid 287(g) agreement changes how long local law enforcement can hold someone at ICE’s request. Referring back to a February 2025 opinion from the Attorney General’s Office—which stated that holding someone solely on an immigration detainer violates state law—the new guidance confirms that even under a 287(g) agreement, officers must comply with Minnesota arrest laws and cannot extend detention beyond what state law allows.
The full text of this legal opinion is available through the official website of the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office.
