Minnesota sheriffs may not unilaterally enter into 287(g) agreements with Immigration and Customs Enforcement
In formal legal opinion, Attorney General’s Office finds Minnesota law allows county board of commissioners, not county sheriff, to enter 287(g) agreement
Also finds 287(g) agreements do not authorize Minnesota law enforcement to detain individuals solely on the basis of a civil ICE detainer request
December 12, 2025 (SAINT PAUL) — The Minnesota Attorney General’s Office issued a formal legal opinion today about 287(g) agreements, which are agreements state and local governments may enter into with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to authorize state or local law enforcement officers to perform certain immigration duties. The opinion finds that 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 opinion also states 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.
Under State law, the Attorney General’s Office may issue a legal opinion upon the request of a limited number of public officials or bodies. The Attorney General’s Office produced today’s opinion on the request of Ramsey County Attorney John Choi, who asked the Office for an opinion on whether Minnesota sheriffs may enter into 287(g) agreements with ICE, and whether such agreements permit local law enforcement officers to detain persons who would otherwise be released from custody pursuant to civil immigration detainers from ICE.
The opinion first reviews what authority the state grants to sheriffs to sign agreements. State law permits sheriffs to enter into contracts to provide police services to towns and cities but does not grant sheriffs the authority to sign such agreements with the federal government. The fact that lawmakers enacted a detailed statute regarding contracts by sheriffs for providing law enforcement services to cities and towns but did not provide for similar contracts with the federal government, implies that the omission of federal contracts is intentional.
Next, the opinion reviews the Minnesota Joint Exercise of Powers Act (the “Joint Powers Act”), which governs agreements between government entities for the cooperative use of their powers. The Joint Powers Act stipulates that contracting parties may only jointly exercise powers “common to the contracting parties or any similar powers.” Since Minnesota sheriffs lack the authority to enforce immigration law absent a 287(g) agreement, they cannot enter into such agreements due to this commonality requirement.
The opinion then notes that, while sheriffs cannot enter into 287(g) agreements with ICE unilaterally, their county board of commissioners can. Subdivision 8 of the Joint Powers Act creates a limited exception to the commonality requirement for counties whereby a county board of commissioners is allowed to enter into an agreement with any other unit of government to “perform on behalf of that unit any service or function which that unit would be authorized to provide, ”allowing a county board of commissioners to vote to enter into a 287(g) agreement.
The opinion then addresses whether operating under 287(g) agreements permits Minnesota law enforcement to detain individuals for the purposes of immigration enforcement. A February 2025 opinion of the Attorney General’s Office found that Minnesota law prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from holding someone based solely on an immigration detainer if the person would otherwise be required under state law to be released from custody. The previous opinion, however, did not examine whether the presence of a properly executed 287(g) agreement would allow for state and local law enforcement agencies to extend detention for immigration purposes. Today’s opinion addresses that question and concludes that 287(g) agreements do not give local law enforcement officers any broader authority under state law than they otherwise have; that they do not permit state law enforcement from effecting arrests or detentions that would otherwise not be permitted under state law; and that officers operating under a 287(g) agreement must comply with Minnesota arrest law.
The full opinion is available on Attorney General’s website.
