State lawmakers consider ban on 287(g) agreements expanding local-federal immigration enforcement

INTERVIEWER: A bill that would ban Minnesota municipalities from signing immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government will be heard this afternoon by a State House Committee. If passed, the legislation would ban and terminate any agreements with the federal government that gives authority to state, county, and local agencies to enforce civil immigration law. The agreements are known as 287(g)s.

A new national ACLU report shows that since the start of President Donald Trump's second term, the number of local municipalities with these agreements has grown tenfold. In Minnesota, nine counties have signed agreements in the last year. Joining me now to talk more about the Bill is the lead author, Democratic State Representative, Athena Hollins. Thanks for your time this afternoon.

ATHENA HOLLINS: Thanks for having me today.

INTERVIEWER: We're also happy to have Julio Murphy Zelaya with the ACLU of Minnesota. Thanks for your time as well, Julio.

JULIO MURPHY ZELAYA: Good to be here.

INTERVIEWER: Representative Hollins, I'd love to start with you. Could you talk about what these 287(g) agreements are, and what has you concerned about them?

ATHENA HOLLINS: Absolutely. So 287(g) agreements allow local law enforcement to be deputized to do immigration enforcement. It is creating a situation that is detrimental to local communities because it erodes the trust that folks have in local law enforcement. We rely a lot on people reporting crimes that they see, letting folks know when they've been harmed or hurt, stolen from, in a domestic abuse situation.

And what this does is make it so that a lot of folks won't feel comfortable reaching out to their local law enforcement because they have a fear of being deported or otherwise detained. That makes a less safe community for all of us.

INTERVIEWER: Julio, the ACLU's new report looked at the impact of these agreements on places where they're active. Can you talk about some of the major findings?

JULIO MURPHY ZELAYA: Yeah. We have been looking at reports and contracts since January of 2025, and what we've seen is just a massive growth in these contracts being signed across the county-- or across the country. Just in the past year, there's been 1,000 more signed in places like Florida, Texas, and here in Minnesota also, with now nine counties who have been signing up for 287(g)s. What we find is that about 32% of the population of our nation is under some sort of contract under this.

So we see this as the growth of immigration enforcement. This is the mechanism to which ICE wants to do this with.

INTERVIEWER: And Representative Hollins, can you talk about the legal basis for your legislation? I understand it would cancel existing agreements, as well as preventing future ones. How would it be able to do that?

ATHENA HOLLINS: Yeah, that's a great question. I mean, the agreements that are currently in place, we want them to end because it's creating a harmful dichotomy within our state. And I think it's critical that we end them as soon as possible, because folks are legitimately scared and don't in which jurisdiction they are going to be subject to these sorts of agreements.

I know that there is some controversy around how to cancel them, but this is state law, and this is part of the reason why we think it's best to address this in a statewide fashion. When we talk about people and how we travel across the state, we don't want one county to be colluding with the federal government, and the next county to not be. That creates this sort of mismatch situation across the state, where folks don't where they are in harm's way or where they're safe. So I think it's especially important that we're addressing this on a statewide level.

INTERVIEWER: Well, Julio, the program has been around, I understand, since 1996. So why do you feel that there has been such an explosion in the last year? And you've both alluded to this, but how receptive have Minnesota counties been to participating?

JULIO MURPHY ZELAYA: Yeah, that's right. This is not a new program. It's existed in several administrations. What we know is that immigration enforcement wants to increase their ability to deport folks. And that rapid sort of increase is very problematic, especially in the Civil Rights and civil liberties aspect, in that people we know in these programs have lost trust and confidence within local law enforcement.

And that's what a report fully finds. It finds that folks are losing trust in these programs, and they're rapidly increasing. They're promising training. They're promising some resources that I've seen a lot of problems actually-- any of that actually happening.

We've seen sheriffs attempt to enforce immigration in Minnesota. And actually, a lot of our lawsuits have pointed at pushing back against that and drawing a bright line between what is Minnesota enforcing and Minnesota enforcing its laws, and what is of federal enforcement? And so what we're trying to make sure to do is that there is a bright line in what and how we enforce our state laws.

Sheriffs especially look at this for detention abilities and increasing detention facilities. And so this is one way that I think they're being looked at. However, we think that there's a lot of limitations in that. And so this report will show some of the dangers and liabilities that getting into these contracts will have.

INTERVIEWER: And Representative Hollins, when borders czar Tom Homan was here in town and announced the drawdown of federal agents, he said the administration was able to reach unprecedented levels of cooperation with local officials. But then the Hennepin County Sheriff has come out to say nothing has changed. And again, as far as we know, the newest or the only new one of these agreements that was signed recently was by the Isle police Department in late January. Are you aware of any other agreements that may be in the works?

ATHENA HOLLINS: I'm not personally aware of any, but I guess, from my perspective, I don't particularly trust what Tom Homan has to say. In this situation, I think they wanted to make it look as good as possible for the reason why they decided to exit the situation and exit Minnesota. And I know that when I talk to my local law enforcement, they're standing strong and standing with the people that they're supposed to be protecting and serving, which is the citizens of St. Paul and Ramsey County.

INTERVIEWER: Homan also said that the surge here was a success because it made-- I'm paraphrasing-- made Minnesota less of a sanctuary state or a sanctuary city. But what do you say, Representative Hollins, to those who say that these agreements, they streamline the process of going after the most violent offenders or the people that DHS says that they are targeting? It helps to secure federal support or some funding there. That it overall is more efficient and improves public safety, because I don't have to tell you that the legislature is drawn basically down the middle along party lines, basically tied. So is there going to be an appetite for this, when a lot of people think that these are improving public safety?

ATHENA HOLLINS: Well, what I would tell folks is that we have a lot of data to show that it does not improve public safety. That, in fact, the federal government has cast an enormously wide net to try to capture not the worst of the worst, as they claim, but in fact, just anybody who maybe has an immigration status. But frankly, even folks who don't.

I have heard so many stories, my own neighbor have been taken in and detained just because they were Brown and going to an Ethiopian church. Like this is not something that is accurate. And the amount of money, frankly, the amount of tax dollar money that's being wasted on this very imprecise effort to capture criminals is completely unacceptable.

I think folks should be outraged because it's their dollars. DHS was given $190 billion, more than any other law enforcement group in the federal government, and they are wasting it by bringing in legal immigrants and US citizens and basically terrorizing the Twin Cities and the rest of Minnesota. So there's been absolutely no evidence that this is slowing crime or bringing in the worst of the worst. It is simply a wide net to terrorize Black and Brown people.

INTERVIEWER: And while I have you, Representative Hollins, I know you're also authoring other bills in response to the ICE surge. Where do you feel those stand do-- what are they? I guess I'm just wondering if you think that you'll be able to make any progress on any of that legislation this session.

ATHENA HOLLINS: I mean, I remain hopeful that we get something across the finish line. I know that this problem, although it's called Metro Surge, it was not limited to the metro. You can talk to people from across the state who have been impacted by ICE and federal agents in our state.

And the reality is people are pushing back on this. I personally feel like Minnesotans are more unified than ever in the fact that there has been extreme federal overreach that has, again, terrorized the state of Minnesota. So while that might not be reflected at the legislature here and the people who are representing those communities, I hear from folks across the state thanking me for the work that we're bringing forward to try to rein in the federal government.

INTERVIEWER: All right, thank you both for your time. Hope you'll check in with us again.

ATHENA HOLLINS: Thank you so much.

JULIO MURPHY ZELAYA: Thank you.

INTERVIEWER: Thank you. That's Representative Athena Hollins and Julio Murphy Zelaya from the ACLU of Minnesota.