WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HF 16

Immigration law enforcement noncooperation ordinances and policies prohibited, use of immigration-related data provided, and county attorneys required to notify federal immigration authorities when an undocumented person is arrested for a crime of violence.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Keith Allen and 27 co-sponsors

Requires county attorneys to notify federal immigration authorities when an undocumented person is arrested for a crime of violence.

Motion did not prevail
#governmentaloperations-federal #lawenforcement
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HF 16

Summary of HF 16 (2025-2026) – Minnesota

Overview

HF 16 is a Minnesota bill that addresses immigration enforcement-related practices by local jurisdictions, data use related to immigration, and notification obligations for county attorneys regarding arrests for crimes of violence by undocumented individuals. The bill aims to restrict noncooperation policies and ordinances, regulate the use and sharing of immigration-related data by local governments, and require county attorneys to notify federal immigration authorities when an undocumented person is arrested for a crime of violence.

1) Purpose and Intent

  • Prohibit or limit local government policies, ordinances, and practices that facilitate noncooperation with federal immigration enforcement efforts.
  • Regulate the use, retention, and sharing of immigration-related data by local governments to reduce cooperation with immigration authorities.
  • Create a mandatory communication requirement for county attorneys to inform federal immigration authorities when an undocumented person is arrested for a crime of violence.

2) Key Provisions and Changes

A. Immigration Law Enforcement Noncooperation Prohibitions

  • Likely bans or restricts local government practices that decline to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement (e.g., declining to share information, refusing to enforce immigration-related detainers, or limiting cooperation with ICE in investigations or detentions).
  • Aims to ensure local agencies and officials do not adopt policies that effectively shield undocumented individuals from federal enforcement actions or investigations.

B. Use of Immigration-Related Data

  • Establishes rules governing how local governments collect, store, and share immigration-related information.
  • Prohibits certain uses of data or sharing across agencies that would impede federal enforcement or undermine immigration status verification.
  • Could require data minimization, prohibitions on using immigration status for purposes unrelated to public safety, or standardized procedures for data retention and destruction.

C. County Attorney Notification to Federal Immigration Authorities

  • Requires county attorneys to notify U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or other federal immigration authorities when an undocumented person is arrested for a crime of violence.
  • Notification could include sharing arrest details, charges, and related case information.
  • May specify timing (e.g., within a certain number of hours/days) and the mechanism for notification (direct contact, reporting systems).

3) Who or What is Affected

  • Local government entities and agencies responsible for public safety, law enforcement, and administration of data (e.g., sheriff’s offices, police departments, county IT/data systems).
  • County attorneys and their offices, who would be subject to mandatory notification obligations.
  • Undocumented individuals who are arrested for crimes of violence, as their information may be shared with federal immigration authorities under the bill.
  • Data systems and information-sharing processes that handle immigration-related information.

4) Procedural and Timeline Aspects

  • Introduction and first reading occurred on February 6, 2025, with referral to Public Safety Finance and Policy.
  • The committee reported on March 13, 2025, with a recommendation to adopt and re-refer to Elections Finance and Government Operations.
  • Action history shows a motion to suspend rules on March 16, 2026, which did not prevail, indicating ongoing consideration or potential for amendments or floor action.
  • The bill has a broad set of sponsors and co-sponsors, indicating significant legislative support and interest across multiple offices.

5) Practical Implications and Considerations

  • The bill would constrain local discretion regarding cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, potentially increasing information sharing and enforcement alignment in localities that adopt it.
  • Local governments may need to adjust data governance policies, IT systems, access controls, and data sharing agreements to comply with new restrictions and notification requirements.
  • County attorneys would need to establish or modify procedures to ensure timely federal notifications, including training, workflow changes, and external reporting channels.
  • Civil liberty and public safety implications are debated in practice: supporters argue it supports rule-of-law and federal immigration enforcement, while critics may raise concerns about collateral consequences for immigrant communities and trust in local law enforcement.

If you’d like, I can tailor this summary to focus on specific sections (e.g., data governance specifics, or the notification workflow) or compare HF 16 to similar or prior Minnesota immigration-related measures.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.