County Fight Paused

Itasca MN — Sheriff Signed 287(g) Without Board Approval; Agreement Treated as Null and Void After AG Ellison Opinion

Itasca, MN FIPS 27061

Current status: Sheriff Joe Dasovich signed a 287(g) Task Force Model agreement with ICE on Feb 27, 2025 — the first of two MN signings that week (Cass's Welk followed Feb 28). The agreement was never approved by the Itasca County Board. After AG Ellison's Dec 12, 2025 opinion that only county boards can authorize 287(g), Dasovich stated publicly (reported Jan 28, 2026) that he is 'in the same position as Cass,' that the agreement will not be brought to the board, and that 'I don't need the 287(g).' Itasca is held up alongside Cass and Jackson by Crow Wing residents as a regional model of nullification.

The Fight

On February 27, 2025, Itasca County Sheriff Joe Dasovich signed a 287(g) Task Force Model (TFM) agreement with ICE — the first of two MN sheriffs to sign that week, with Cass County’s Bryan Welk following on February 28. The agreement was signed by the sheriff alone and was never brought to or approved by the Itasca County Board of Commissioners.

On December 12, 2025, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison issued a formal opinion holding that Minnesota sheriffs may not unilaterally enter 287(g) agreements; the authority to contract with the federal government rests with the county board of commissioners. The opinion further held that 287(g) agreements do not by themselves authorize local law enforcement to detain individuals based solely on an ICE request.

In a KAXE story published January 28, 2026, Sheriff Dasovich stated he is “in the same position as Cass [County],” confirmed the Itasca agreement was never board-approved, and said there are no plans to bring it before the board. He told KAXE: “Those are the only ones we deal with, are the ones [immigrants] with ICE detainers that have committed crime here in Itasca County. So, I don’t need the 287(g). We’re going to do it how we’ve always done it.” Per Dasovich, the only instance Itasca worked with ICE was earlier in 2025, and ICE has not been to Itasca County since.

By March 24, 2026, Crow Wing County residents were carrying signs at the CWC board meeting reading “Respectfully request Crow Wing County join Jackson, Cass & Itasca Counties to nullify the 287g” — confirming Itasca’s status as part of the regional nullification model.

Timeline

February 27, 2025 — Sheriff Dasovich signs 287(g) Task Force Model agreement with ICE, the first MN signing in the revived TFM. Dasovich cites a regional “grandparent scam” loss of about $50,000 as part of his rationale for ICE cooperation.
February 28, 2025 — Cass County Sheriff Welk signs the same agreement type one day later.
March 14, 2025 — KAXE reports both sheriffs as the first in MN to enter the revived TFM.
November 7, 2025 — Minnesota Reformer reports eight MN counties (including Itasca) have signed agreements with ICE.
December 12, 2025 — AG Ellison issues opinion: sheriffs cannot unilaterally enter 287(g) agreements; only county boards can. Opinion released after a request for guidance from Ramsey County Attorney John Choi.
January 28, 2026 — KAXE reports Dasovich’s response: agreement never board-approved, won’t be brought to the board, and “I don’t need the 287(g).” Dasovich aligns himself explicitly with Cass.
March 24, 2026 — Crow Wing County residents invoke “Jackson, Cass & Itasca Counties” by name as the nullification model at a CWC board meeting.

Key Actors

Sheriff Joe Dasovich — Itasca County Sheriff (Grand Rapids, MN seat); signed the unilateral 287(g) Feb 27, 2025; post-AG-opinion stated the agreement will not go to the board and is not needed. Seeking another term per local press coverage.

(No Itasca County Attorney, board chair, or individual commissioner has been quoted in tier-1 reporting on the nullification — the public record on the Itasca side is led by the sheriff’s own concession that the agreement was never board-authorized and will not be enforced.)

Why This Fight Matters

Itasca is the second MN instance — and chronologically the first signer — where the AG-opinion recourse produced de facto nullification without litigation. Unlike Cass, where the county attorney and a commissioner publicly declared the agreement null and void on the record, in Itasca the sheriff himself conceded that the agreement was never board-approved and will not be brought forward. The practical effect is identical: the agreement is treated as a legal nullity and the sheriff has stood down on its enforcement.

Itasca matters as the upstream signal for the broader MN cluster: it was the first sheriff to sign under the revived TFM and is now one of three counties — alongside Cass and Jackson — that residents elsewhere (notably Crow Wing) cite by name when demanding their own boards nullify. The Itasca path differs slightly from Cass in that the public retreat came from the elected sheriff’s own statements rather than a county-attorney legal determination, but both produce the same outcome: agreement inoperative, no enforcement, no litigation required.

Cross-reference: Sibling-mechanism instance — elected-officer unilateral action vs. county board

Itasca County, MN is now the sixth instance of the recurring structural pattern documented in unilateral-elected-officer-vs-board-governance-capture.md: an independently-elected county officer (here the sheriff) signs an immigration-enforcement agreement on their own authority, leaving the county board (the body the AG/state law identifies as the actual contracting authority) to either sue, ratify, declare void, or sit on its hands.

The five previously-documented instances and their variants:

Pinal County, AZ — County Attorney signed 287(g) on his own authority; Board of Supervisors unanimously declared it illegal and void and sued. Variant 1: Litigation.
Cass County, MN — Sheriff Welk signed unilaterally; County Attorney Lindstrom and Commissioner Gaalswyk publicly declared the agreement null and void Jan 20, 2026; sheriff acquiesced. Variant 2: AG-opinion nullification (clean, no lawsuit).
Hamilton County, TN — Sheriff signed; both county commission and Chattanooga city council concluded they have NO legal authority over the elected sheriff under TN HB2219. Variant 3: Statutory powerlessness.
Crow Wing County, MN and Sherburne County, MN — Boards have legal authority post-Ellison opinion but refuse to act; sheriffs continue under unilateral signings. Variant 4: Political alignment-by-inaction.
Kandiyohi County, MN — Board paralyzed; cannot organize majority to either ratify or void. Variant 5: Political paralysis.

Itasca County, MN — fits Variant 2 (AG-opinion nullification), with a sheriff-led twist. The agreement was never board-approved, the AG opinion confirms only the board could have approved it, and the sheriff himself has publicly stated the agreement will not go to the board and that he does not need it. This is the same operative outcome as Cass — agreement treated as null, no enforcement, no litigation — but driven by the sheriff’s concession rather than an explicit county-attorney legal determination. It is best read as a “Variant 2 sub-form”: elected-officer self-nullification under AG-opinion pressure.

Fits the sibling mechanism: YES. Same structural setup (unilateral elected officer vs. board), same legal trigger (AG Dec 12, 2025 opinion), same effective resolution (de facto nullification without litigation). Itasca, Cass, and Jackson together form the MN “nullification cluster” that Crow Wing residents are now invoking as a template.

Sources

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

Edit Report issue County profile Add a tip about this fight