County Fight Contested

Kandiyohi MN — Board Chairman Criticizes ICE 'Cowboys', 22-Year IGSA Contested

Kandiyohi, MN FIPS 27067

Current status: Board publicly divided. Chairman criticized federal agents as 'cowboys.' Vigil drew 100 supporters. IGSA active 22+ years. 287(g) WSO signed May 2025 but not operationalized. AG Ellison Dec 12, 2025 opinion held sheriffs cannot unilaterally sign 287(g) — authority belongs to county boards. Board discussed 287(g) for first time in public Feb 3, 2026, took no action; commissioner Corky Berg flagged lawsuit/financial-liability concerns. Board paralysis variant: the unilateral sheriff signature stands while a divided board declines to vote either way.

The Fight

Kandiyohi County has held ICE detainees for 22+ years under an IGSA — the longest such arrangement in Minnesota. The jail in Willmar designates approximately 150 of its 190 beds for ICE detainees. In May 2025, Sheriff Eric Tollefson signed a 287(g) WSO agreement, but the agreement has not been operationalized because officers have not been trained.

The Kandiyohi County Board has been publicly divided:

The board chairman criticized the “cowboy” behavior of federal immigration agents
Multiple commissioners spoke of citizens being “unjustly detained” and “kidnapped”
The board discussed the 287(g) agreement for the first time in a public meeting after community pressure
Approximately 100 people attended a vigil outside the Law Enforcement Center on November 21, 2025

The community dynamics are complex. Willmar is conservative but diverse, with significant immigrant communities essential to the local economy. The Star Tribune characterized the county as having “nuanced views on immigration.”

Why This Fight Matters

Kandiyohi is the economic paradox: the county profits from detaining immigrants while its economy depends on immigrant labor. The 22-year IGSA has embedded detention revenue deeply into county finances, making it harder to end than newer agreements.

The board division — with the chairman openly critical of ICE — creates a political opening that organizers in other counties lack. If the board votes to end or limit ICE cooperation, it would remove Minnesota’s largest ICE detention site by bed count.

The proposed state legislation (HF 3060/SF 2973) to ban county ICE contracts would directly impact Kandiyohi.

Timeline Updates (2026)

2025-12-12 — Minnesota AG Keith Ellison issues formal opinion (at Ramsey County Attorney John Choi’s request) holding that Minnesota sheriffs may NOT unilaterally enter into 287(g) agreements with ICE; the authority rests with county boards of commissioners under the Joint Powers Act. Opinion also reaffirms that 287(g) confers no broader state-law arrest/detention authority and that officers operating under such an agreement must comply with Minnesota arrest law. (MN AG Office; AG Opinion PDF; Minnesota Reformer)
2026-02-03 — Kandiyohi County Board discusses Sheriff Eric Tollefson’s 287(g) WSO agreement publicly for the first time since he signed it. Tollefson confirms no corrections officers have yet been trained; the WSO has not been operationalized. The board takes no action on the agreement. Commissioner Corky Berg states: “I am concerned about the financial impact of this in case any lawsuit connected.” Whether the board will be required to vote on the agreement remains open and is described as contingent on pending court cases. (West Central Tribune)
2026-02-26 — Sheriff Tollefson reports a noted decrease in ICE activity in Willmar over the prior weeks and says communications with ICE officials have improved. (Willmar Radio / Forum News)
2026-03 — MN HF 3060 / SF 2973 (ban on local ICE detention contracts and on 287(g) agreements; voids existing contracts) advances in committee. House Speaker Lisa Demuth publicly opposes; passage uncertain. Kandiyohi listed among counties currently housing ICE detainees alongside Crow Wing, Freeborn, and Sherburne. (MN House Session Daily; MPR News)

Cross-Reference: Unilateral-Officer-vs-Board Sibling Mechanism

Kandiyohi is a fourth confirmed instance of the unilateral-elected-officer-vs-board-governance-capture pattern, in a distinct board-paralysis variant:

The sheriff signed the 287(g) agreement unilaterally in May 2025 — months before the AG opinion clarified that the authority was the board’s, not his.
Post-AG-opinion (Dec 12, 2025), the board has clear legal authority to act, but at its first public discussion (Feb 3, 2026) it neither ratified nor terminated the agreement. The board is openly divided (chairman against; another commissioner citing “kidnapped” residents; another worried about lawsuit costs).
Net effect: the sheriff’s unilateral signature stands; operational implementation is stalled only because corrections officers remain untrained and pending litigation creates legal risk — not because the board exercised its authority.

Compare to the three previously documented instances:

Pinal County, AZ — Board sued the sheriff (active recourse).
Hamilton County, TN — Board has no legal authority (locked in by HB 2219).
Crow Wing County, MN — Board has authority per the same AG opinion but chooses inaction (political-discretionary powerlessness).

Kandiyohi differs from Crow Wing in that Crow Wing’s board is broadly aligned with the sheriff’s posture (inaction = de facto endorsement), whereas Kandiyohi’s board is openly split and unable to assemble a majority either way (paralysis = de facto endorsement of the status quo unilateral signature). Both Minnesota counties confirm the MN cluster sub-pattern: the AG opinion creates legal authority for boards but does not, by itself, force a vote — and rural boards facing economic dependency on detention revenue tend not to use that authority.

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