Minnesota Corrections Chief Refutes Claims of Noncooperation with ICE

Minnesota Corrections Commissioner Refutes DHS Claims of Non-Cooperation with ICE

Minnesota’s top corrections official has strongly rejected allegations from the Department of Homeland Security that local authorities are failing to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement operations, calling the claims “fundamentally false.”

In an exclusive interview with CBS News homeland security correspondent Nicole Sganga, Minnesota Corrections Commissioner Paul Schnell responded forcefully to the accusations, which have heightened tensions between state and federal law enforcement agencies.

“The characterization that we’re not cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement is simply untrue,” Schnell told CBS News. “We follow established protocols and legal requirements while balancing our responsibilities to all Minnesota residents.”

The dispute emerges amid growing national debate over immigration enforcement policies and the relationship between federal authorities and state and local jurisdictions. Minnesota, like many states, has faced complex questions about the extent of cooperation required with federal immigration authorities.

DHS officials have recently claimed that Minnesota authorities have hindered ICE operations by not honoring detainer requests and failing to share information about individuals in custody who may be subject to deportation. These claims come as the Biden administration faces pressure to demonstrate robust enforcement at the southern border and in the interior of the country.

Commissioner Schnell detailed the state’s actual procedures, explaining that Minnesota correctional facilities do notify ICE when non-citizens are scheduled for release, providing federal authorities with opportunity to take custody if they choose. However, he emphasized that state policies are designed to comply with court rulings that limit detention solely based on ICE requests without judicial warrants.

“We’re operating within the framework of the law,” Schnell said. “What we cannot do is hold someone beyond their release date without proper legal authority. That’s been clearly established by the courts.”

Immigration policy experts note that this dispute reflects a nationwide tension over the proper role of state and local law enforcement in federal immigration matters. Several court decisions in recent years have limited how long local authorities can detain individuals solely on immigration holds without violating constitutional protections against unlawful detention.

Michele Garnett McKenzie, Deputy Director at The Advocates for Human Rights, a Minnesota-based organization, commented on the situation: “There’s often a misunderstanding about what cooperation legally requires. State facilities have constitutional obligations to individuals in their custody that can’t be ignored even when federal agencies make requests.”

The dispute has potentially significant implications for public safety and community relations. Law enforcement officials have expressed concerns that portraying local authorities as uncooperative with federal immigration efforts can undermine trust in immigrant communities, potentially making witnesses and victims less likely to come forward.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz’s office released a statement supporting Commissioner Schnell’s position, noting that state agencies “follow the law while ensuring that all Minnesotans are treated with dignity and respect.”

The controversy occurs against the backdrop of national immigration debates that have intensified in recent months. Border security and interior enforcement policies have become increasingly polarized issues in Congress and across the country.

DHS representatives declined to provide specific examples of non-cooperation when contacted for this report but indicated that the agency stands by its assessment of the situation in Minnesota.

Commissioner Schnell emphasized that Minnesota’s approach balances public safety priorities with legal and constitutional requirements. “We’re committed to working with all our partners, including federal agencies, but we must do so within the boundaries of the law,” he said.

As this disagreement continues to unfold, it highlights the ongoing challenges in coordinating immigration enforcement across different levels of government in an increasingly complex legal and political landscape.