Attorney General’s Office releases guidance regarding federal immigration policy for organizations maintaining sensitive locations

May 2, 2025 (SAINT PAUL) – Today, the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office released guidance for organizations that manage sensitive locations on their rights and responsibilities with respect to recent changes in federal immigration enforcement policy.

For more than a decade, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) did not conduct enforcement actions in sensitive locations, like medical facilities, houses of worship, courts, schools, and shelters. This was done to avoid deterring anyone from important activities like seeking medical care or shelter, testifying in court, or worshipping as they choose, which could undermine public health or public safety, much less the First Amendment.

On January 31, 2025, ICE rescinded previous guidelines that protected sensitive locations from immigration enforcement. Today’s guidance is intended for organizations that manage sensitive locations—primarily healthcare settings, houses of worship, and social-service agencies — as they consider how to respond to this change in policy. It addresses who does and does not enforce federal immigration law, the rules that apply to immigration enforcement in public and non-public spaces at sensitive locations, the difference between judicial and administrative warrants, protocols an organization may establish for interacting with ICE, and an organization’s rights and responsibilities if ICE is conducting immigration enforcement,

The guidance begins by emphasizing that enforcing immigration law is the responsibility of the federal government. Under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, no state or local authorities may be coerced into enforcing federal immigration law. Local law enforcement may voluntarily enter into 287(g) agreements with ICE, which allows them to assist with enforcement. The guidance notes that courts have not yet addressed whether these agreements are consistent with Minnesota law.

The guidance then reviews the areas within a given location that ICE is permitted to enter without a warrant or authorization from the organization maintaining the space. ICE generally does not need permission to enter and conduct lawful immigration enforcement actions in the public areas of a location, such as a lobby, hospital waiting room, a church’s worship area, or a library’s reading room. To enter non-public areas, such as a back office, patient care areas, and employee breakrooms, ICE needs either permission from the organization, a subpoena, or a court-issued warrant, also called a judicial warrant, to conduct a search or investigation. 

The guidance reviews the difference between judicial warrants and administrative warrants, also known as “ICE warrants”, which direct ICE agents to arrest a named individual for alleged violations of federal immigration law. Judicial warrants are issued by a court; administrative warrants are issued by ICE itself, rather than a court. A judicial warrant authorizes ICE to enter non-public areas without permission; an administrative or ICE warrant does not. Organizations have the right to read the warrant to determine that it is a judicial warrant that authorizes the agent to enter private spaces for enforcement purposes or an administrative warrant that does not authorize an agent to enter private spaces. The guidance includes information on how to distinguish between these different types of warrants.

The guidance notes that there can be some ambiguity as to whether a space is considered public or private and discusses the factors that courts have used to categorize a particular space. Generally, the more characteristics associated with privacy an area exhibits, such as secured doors or signs denoting restricted access, the more likely it is to be considered private. Rooms where sensitive, personal activities occur outside of public view, like a patient exam room at a clinic, are generally considered private. Bedrooms and sleeping areas are also generally considered private, even if that sleeping area is being used by more than one person, like at a shelter. Additionally, if a space is only open to the public during certain hours, it is generally considered private outside of those hours. 

Then, the guidance discusses the protocols that organizations managing sensitive locations can establish in the event they interact with immigration agents. Organizations are advised to designate one staff person to take point on those interactions.

Organizations have the right to document an agent’s name, ID number, and the name of the agency, to ask whether the agent has a warrant, and to request to inspect a warrant to determine whether it is a judicial or administrative warrant. If ICE agents have a judicial warrant that authorizes entry into non-public space, organization staff have the right to watch the agents to make sure they are complying with the judicial warrant and are only entering private areas that are designated in the warrant. Audio or video recording by organization staff of any interaction with ICE is also allowed.

Staff are not required to answer an ICE agent’s questions, including questions about individuals or their whereabouts. Staff should not interfere with ICE agents’ lawful activities, and providing false information to ICE agents is illegal and can result in severe penalties, including criminal charges.

The guidance then notes that, in general, organizations are not required to ask for or store the immigration status of people they serve, and that if an organization does collect and store that information, they may be required to surrender it if ICE obtains a judicial warrant for the information.

The guidance closes with a reminder that it is a violation of both state and federal law to discriminate against someone on the basis of their immigration status. Under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, all people in the country, not just U.S. citizens, are entitled to due process and equal-protection rights.

Today’s guidance does not address ICE enforcement in Minnesota schools. The Attorney General’s Office issued guidance on February 14, 2025 about ICE enforcement on school grounds in Minnesota. Nor does it address ICE enforcement in Minnesota courts. The Minnesota Judicial Branch sets policies and provides guidance for courts.

Read the full guidance from the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office here.