WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HF 3413

State, county, and local government units prohibited from entering into certain immigration enforcement agreements; and termination of certain existing immigration enforcement agreements required.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Esther Agbaje and 12 co-sponsors

HF 3413 bans state, county, and local governments in Minnesota from entering into or maintaining immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities or others, and requires

Author added Kraft
#governmentaloperations-federal #governmentaloperations-local #internationalrelations #lawenforcement #publicsafetydepartment
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HF 3413

Summary of HF 3413 (2025-2026) – Minnesota

Purpose and Intent

HF 3413 aims to prohibit state, county, and local government units in Minnesota from entering into certain immigration enforcement agreements. The bill also requires termination of certain existing immigration enforcement agreements. The overarching goal appears to be limiting collaboration between state and local governments and federal immigration authorities, with an emphasis on controlling or rolling back immigration enforcement activities at subfederal levels.

Key Provisions and Changes

  • Prohibition on certain agreements:
    • The bill bars state, county, and local government units from entering into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities or other entities that would enable or facilitate immigration enforcement activities, detainer requests, or information sharing that supports immigration enforcement beyond standard lawful duties.
  • Termination of existing agreements:
    • Requires the termination of certain existing immigration enforcement agreements that are deemed to authorize or facilitate such activities. This implies a retroactive or ongoing obligation to unwind treaties, contracts, MOUs, or similar arrangements that conflict with the bill’s prohibitions.
  • Scope of entities affected:
    • Applies to state government agencies as well as counties, municipalities, and other local government units operating within Minnesota.
  • Enforcement and compliance mechanisms:
    • The bill is likely to establish mechanisms to ensure compliance, potentially including reporting requirements, auditing, or penalties for noncompliance. (Specific enforcement details would be in the text.)
  • Definitions and clarifications:
    • The bill would define terms such as “immigration enforcement agreements,” “detainers,” and related terms to delineate what is prohibited and what constitutes termination-worthy arrangements.

Who Would Be Affected

  • State agencies and employees engaged in or considering partnerships or agreements related to immigration enforcement.
  • Counties, cities, and local government units that currently have or may enter into such agreements.
  • Contractors and third-party partners that operate under any government agreement related to immigration enforcement.

Procedural and Timeline Aspects

  • Introduction and committee action:
    • Introduced and initially read on February 17, 2026. Referred to the Public Safety Finance and Policy committee for consideration.
  • Sponsors and support:
    • Primary authorship and multiple co-sponsors representing a broad coalition, including several named legislators such as Kraft, Howard, Smith, Xiong, and others.
  • Next steps:
    • The bill would proceed through committee hearings, potential amendments, floor votes in the Minnesota House, and, if advanced, onward to the Minnesota Senate (and eventual signature or veto by the governor) as part of the 2025-2026 session process.

Potential Impacts and Considerations

  • Policy impact:
    • Reduces or eliminates subfederal collaboration with federal immigration enforcement, potentially limiting cooperation in enforcement actions, data sharing, and detention-related activities.
  • Operational impact:
    • Government units may need to review existing contracts, MOUs, and intergovernmental agreements to identify and terminate those that conflict with the prohibition.
  • Legal considerations:
    • May raise questions about conflicts with federalimmigration responsibilities and existing statutory or constitutional authorities; implementation would require clear definitions and compliant processes.
  • Community effects:
    • Could affect immigrant communities by reducing local or state-level cooperation with federal removal efforts, potentially influencing trust in local government and public safety reporting dynamics.

If you’d like, I can tailor this summary to include direct excerpts from the bill text (definitions, prohibited activities, and termination timelines) or compare HF 3413 to current Minnesota statutes on immigration-related cooperation.

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

Sign in to ask a question.