Minnesota Corrections Department Exposes Homeland Security’s False Arrest Claims

In an escalating dispute over immigration enforcement, the Minnesota Department of Corrections has intensified efforts to counter what it calls “misleading claims and misinformation” from federal authorities about cooperation on immigrant detainees.

State prison officials released evidence Monday of 68 direct inmate transfers to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), contradicting federal claims that Minnesota is obstructing immigration enforcement. This documentation follows a press conference last week where Minnesota DOC Commissioner Paul Schnell publicly challenged ICE’s characterization of state cooperation.

The controversy centers on allegations from ICE and the Department of Homeland Security that Minnesota fails to honor federal detainers and facilitate custody transfers of immigrants in state prisons—claims the state corrections department flatly denies.

“Despite our best efforts to correct the record and engage directly with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, they continue to publicly repeat information that is inaccurate and misleading,” Schnell said in a statement. “This is no longer a simple misunderstanding.”

The commissioner offered a blunt assessment of possible explanations for the federal stance. “At best, DHS fundamentally misunderstands Minnesota’s correctional system. At a minimum, this reflects systemic data management inadequacies or incompetence as it relates to DHS tracking detainers and custody,” Schnell said. “At worst, it is pure propaganda. Numbers released without evidence to stoke fear rather than inform the public.”

The Minnesota DOC has now created a dedicated webpage with documentation, videos, and explanatory materials specifically aimed at “combatting DHS misinformation.”

The dispute highlights growing tensions between state and federal authorities over immigration enforcement responsibilities. Since the Biden administration took office, several states have pushed back against federal immigration policies they consider either too lenient or improperly implemented. Conversely, federal officials have accused certain states of hindering enforcement efforts required by federal law.

Immigration policy experts note that coordination between state corrections systems and federal immigration authorities has grown increasingly contentious in recent years. Some states have passed laws limiting cooperation with ICE detainers, while others maintain close working relationships with federal immigration officials.

Minnesota’s situation is particularly notable as the state has not enacted formal sanctuary policies that explicitly limit cooperation with ICE, making the federal claims of non-cooperation more surprising to state officials.

The 68 transfers documented by Minnesota DOC directly challenge ICE’s characterization of these same cases as “arrests,” suggesting fundamental disagreements about how immigration enforcement activities are classified and reported.

According to Schnell, repeated attempts by state officials to engage directly with DHS leadership to resolve the dispute have gone unanswered, fueling frustration among Minnesota corrections officials who feel federal agencies are deliberately misrepresenting the state’s practices.

The public dispute raises concerns about interagency coordination at a time when immigration remains a divisive political issue nationally. Data accuracy and transparent reporting on immigration enforcement activities have significant implications for public trust in both state and federal institutions.

When contacted by local media for comment on Minnesota DOC’s latest statements and evidence, DHS had not provided a response at the time of reporting.

The conflict underscores the complex relationship between state corrections systems and federal immigration authorities, especially regarding custody transfers and detention policies for non-citizens who have served criminal sentences and face potential deportation proceedings.