Montana AG demands county reverse policy denying ICE access to criminal records, warns of legal action
Key Takeaways
- Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen says Gallatin County’s stance that ICE is not entitled to Confidential Criminal Justice Information (CCJI) is "legally incorrect" and threatens enforcement under the state’s 2021 ban on sanctuary policies.
- It has been reported that an email from a county aide said the county “does not legally recognize Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as a law enforcement agency entitled to receive CCJI”; the county attorney’s office says that email reflected a narrow civil-law determination, not a blanket policy.
- CCJI (Confidential Criminal Justice Information) is information restricted under state law to agencies engaged in the administration of criminal justice; Montana’s statute ties disclosure to whether a request furthers criminal-justice functions.
- The dispute highlights tension between state-level sanctuary bans and local legal interpretations, with direct consequences for immigrants facing civil immigration processes and for local-federal law enforcement cooperation.
- Knudsen invoked Montana’s 2021 prohibition on sanctuary jurisdictions and warned Gallatin County that refusal to comply could trigger civil investigation or other enforcement actions.
Background
Montana’s attorney general, Austin Knudsen, has told Gallatin County (which includes Bozeman) that a county aide’s email — which it has been reported stated the county “does not legally recognize” ICE as entitled to CCJI — is at odds with state law and the state’s 2021 ban on sanctuary policies. The state law, signed by Gov. Greg Gianforte, prohibits local policies that would obstruct federal immigration enforcement and empowers the attorney general to investigate and seek civil remedies against noncompliant local governments.
County response and legal reasoning
Gallatin County Attorney Audrey Cromwell’s office pushed back, saying there is “no blanket policy” refusing cooperation with ICE or other federal agencies and that the County Commission, not the County Attorney, sets county policy. The county explained that, in the specific instance raised, ICE requested nonpublic CCJI for what the county’s civil division determined was a civil matter; under Montana’s CCJI statutes, the office concluded ICE was not acting in a criminal-justice capacity and therefore the records were not automatically shareable without a court order. CCJI is a statutory category for sensitive criminal-record information that state law generally restricts to agencies performing criminal-justice functions.
Stakes and what this means for immigrants and local agencies
The dispute matters for several groups: immigrants who face civil immigration enforcement (detention, removal proceedings, or background checks), local law enforcement that must balance community trust with statutory duties, and federal agencies like ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) that rely on local records. If the state forces counties to treat ICE broadly as a criminal-justice agency, more local records could be available to federal immigration enforcement without court orders, potentially increasing immigration enforcement activity. Conversely, counties that narrowly interpret CCJI access aim to limit disclosures when the federal request is tied to civil immigration matters. For people navigating the immigration system now, the practical result could be faster or easier access by ICE to local criminal-history records in Montana if the AG prevails — affecting detention, bond, or removal proceedings — and it may chill local efforts to craft narrower disclosure rules for civil requests.
Source: Original Article