County Fight Litigation

Freeborn MN — ACLU Wins First 287(g) Injunction in Minnesota

Freeborn, MN FIPS 27047

Current status: Preliminary injunction granted January 16, 2026. First successful legal challenge to a 287(g) agreement in Minnesota. IGSA for holding ICE detainees unaffected.

The Fight

In March 2025, the Freeborn County sheriff unilaterally entered a 287(g) WSO agreement with ICE. On December 18, 2025, the ACLU of Minnesota and pro bono co-counsel Maslon LLP filed suit on behalf of four Freeborn County taxpayers: Leslie Kaup, Jeremy Corey-Gruenes, Jim Margadant, and Daphne Hamborg.

The legal theory: Minnesota law does not authorize sheriffs to hold individuals for ICE after they have been released from state custody, and does not authorize local law enforcement to conduct civil immigration arrests. The taxpayers argued they should not be forced to fund an illegal program.

On January 16, 2026, the court granted a preliminary injunction — the first successful legal challenge to a 287(g) agreement in Minnesota.

Why This Fight Matters

Freeborn is the template case for killing 287(g) agreements in Minnesota. The taxpayer-standing theory can be replicated in every county with a 287(g) — Crow Wing, Kandiyohi, Cass, Itasca, Jackson, Mille Lacs, and Sherburne. If the injunction holds through full litigation, it could functionally end the 287(g) program in Minnesota.

Combined with AG Ellison’s December 2025 opinion and the proposed HF 3060/SF 2973 legislation to ban county ICE contracts, Freeborn represents the legal prong of a three-front strategy (legal, executive, legislative) against county-ICE cooperation in Minnesota.

Note: The injunction blocks the 287(g) enforcement component but does not terminate the underlying IGSA for holding ICE detainees. The 138-bed jail continues to house ICE detainees.

Sources

Updates (2026-04-29)

Post-injunction procedural developments:

January 2026 (post-injunction): Freeborn County announced it will petition to remove the case to federal court. County’s position: “there is no justiciable controversy because the county has not performed any services under the agreement.”
Plaintiff response: Plaintiffs sought removal of the original judge and her replacement (both judges in Freeborn County have been removed from the case per judicial recusal).
March 9, 2026: Motion hearing held by Zoom before the court. No ruling on this hearing reported publicly.
No ruling published as of April 29, 2026 — the January 16 preliminary injunction remains in effect. Case is in procedural posture (removal petition, judicial recusal motions) with no reported substantive ruling since the injunction.
Legislative context: Minnesota lawmakers introduced competing legislation on 287(g) — one bill to expand county participation and one to ban county ICE contracts (HF 3060/SF 2973). Status unclear as of this check.
KAALTV/ABC 6: Minnesota lawmakers offer competing legislation on 287(g) Program — Both pro-expansion and ban bills introduced in MN legislature

This research is published at The RAMM — investigative reporting on the detention pipeline.

Edit Report issue County profile Add a tip about this fight