About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

2025 Op. Minn. Att'y Gen. 1 (2025)

handle is hein.sag/sagmn0092 and id is 1 raw text is: 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. Minn. Stat. §§ 629.30; .34 3-a The Office of Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison helping people afford their lives and live with dignity, safety, and respect www.agstatetmn.us February 6, 2025 John J. Choi Ramsey County Attorney 360 Wabasha Street North, Suite 100 St. Paul, MN 55102-1418 Re: Request for Advisory Opinion Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 8.07 Dear Ramsey County Attorney Choi: Thank you for your letter of January 13, 2025, which requests an opinion from this Office on whether Ramsey County can lawfully hold people in custody based on civil immigration detainer requests from U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement. BACKGROUND The facts as you present them are as follows. In 2014, the Ramsey County Attorney's Office reviewed the legality of holding people in custody at the Ramsey County Jail and the Ramsey County Correctional Facility in response to immigration detainers issued by U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE). As discussed below, an immigration detainer is a request from ICE to hold someone for up to 48 hours beyond the time they would otherwise be released so federal immigration officers may assume custody. See 8 C.F.R. § 287.7. Your Office concluded that holding people because of immigration detainers was unconstitutional and exposed Ramsey County to civil liability. In 2019, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reached a similar conclusion. In Esparza v. Nobles County, the court of appeals affirmed an injunction prohibiting Nobles County and the Nobles County Sheriff from holding people because of immigration detainers. See A18-2011, 2019 WL 4594512 (Minn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2019). The plaintiffs alleged that prolonging their detention-and delaying their release from custody-based solely on an immigration detainer violated Minnesota law. Id. at *2. The court of appeals concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of that claim. Id. at *4-10.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most