Plaintiffs argue the agreement is void because commissioners never approved it
By Carli Johnson STAFF WRITER
In late April, four residents filed a complaint against Gallatin County commissioners and the sheriff over an immigration enforcement agreement that was passed in 2020.
This morning, May 28, County Attorney Audrey Cromwell announced that the county will not proceed with its Immigration, Customs and Enforcement 287(g) operations until the county commission “ratifies” the partnership in a July public meeting—the citizens’ lawsuit argued it was not approved by the commission in 2020.
“I can represent on behalf of our clients—the sheriff and the commissioners—that the county agrees not to act under the 287(g) agreement unless and until the Board of County Commissioners ratifies the 287(g) agreement,” Cromwell said.
The agreement, referred to as 287(g) Warrant Service Officer model, allows Gallatin County’s detention center to process and hold inmates for up to 48 hours beyond their scheduled release under an ICE detainer. With this agreement in place, ICE agents will often arrest individuals before they are released from the Gallatin County Detention Center.
The hearing emerged from a May 12 order by Judge Rienne H. McElyea, based on the April complaint that argues the ICE agreement in Gallatin County is void and unlawful. The plaintiffs argue that the agreement is void because it did not receive consent from commissioners and therefore violates a Montana law. Instead, it was signed quietly by former sheriff Brian Gootkin in January 2020.
The four Gallatin County residents Julia Shaida, Tegan Bauer, Erin Levy and Susan McGrath were represented by attorney Christopher Gray. County Commissioners Zach Brown, Jennifer Boyer and Sheriff Dan Springer were represented by Cromwell.
Cromwell opened by acknowledging the facts: that former sheriff Gootkin entered into the 287(g) agreement in January 2020 and that the board of county commissioners never ratified it.
Under this program, ICE training certifies and authorizes detention center staff to serve and execute ICE administrative warrants, through I-200 forms, on individuals that are already in Gallatin County custody.
Cromwell referenced the 2020 Montana Supreme Court case Ramon v. Short that decided that holding an “alien” under a civil immigration detainer request constituted a new arrest. Without a 287(g) agreement, Montana law didn’t authorize local law enforcement to conduct a civil immigration arrest during the time of the state supreme court trial, Cromwell noted.
“It’s our assumption, because sheriff Gootkin no longer resides here in Gallatin County, that sheriff Gootkin entered into the 287(g) agreement to continue to hold individuals for ICE in a legal manner,” Cromwell said.
But in 2021, the Montana Legislature responded to the court decision by making it mandatory that an officer arrests an individual in custody who’s received an immigration detainer request. This statute now makes it mandatory for detention center staff and local law enforcement to arrest a person who is already in custody and hold them for 48 hours after they would have been released, so that ICE can pick them up as long as detention center staff is in possession of a civil immigration detainer request.The same is required in another law prohibiting sanctuary policies, doubling down on officers’ required compliance with immigration enforcement.
However, Cromwell shared that the sheriff’s office hasn’t trained any officers for 287(g) duties since the last trained officer, Sergeant Michael Flohr, died unexpectedly in a hunting accident. This means that the sheriff’s office hasn’t issued any immigration enforcement warrants since 2025. Any warrants must be processed directly by ICE agents.
For now, county 287(g) enforcement will continue to be on hold until the board of county commissioners ratifies the agreement, Cromwell stated.
There are only two commissioners at this time and the board wants to have a third commissioner to avoid any possibility of a split decision, warranting a July meeting date for the decision, Cromwell explained in her defense.
The judge questioned why the case was still brought to court, to which attorney Gray responded they were only informed of the county’s response at 3 p.m. the previous day.
At that point, Gray took the stand.
“These new developments, as I said as of three o’clock yesterday, deflect the court in determining whether or not cause was shown today,” he said.
Gray expressed opposition to the word “ratify” in relation to Cromwell’s stance about 287(g)’s approval. Rather, the issue concerns “consent.”
“In a nutshell that agreement is void because the proper parties did not enter into the agreement, i.e., consent,” Gray said.
He acknowledged the laws presented by Cromwell that require compliance.
“But we also have a state law that says very clearly that the commission, as the owner of the jail, needs to consent to the use of the jail for federal detainees,” Gray said. He asked the judge to consider the “unambiguous language” of the law—regarding detention center use—at the heart of the plaintiff’s case against the county.
Cromwell’s response argued that the present hearing concerning a writ of mandate is not the proper method for voiding this agreement.
“The commissioners have already agreed to hold a hearing to decide whether to ratify 287(g),” she stated. “There’s no legal duty to void the agreement or to ratify the agreement. That’s discretionary action on part of the commissioners.”
The hearing concluded promptly and the defendants quickly filed out while the plaintiffs huddled in a post-hearing brief.
Plaintiff Julia Shaida was happy to see progress in the case.
“ I feel glad that the judge is taking our concerns seriously and that there will be a written response from the county government, so I feel good about that,” Shaida told EBS.
Christopher Gray declined to comment due to the ongoing nature of the case.
Jen Clancey contributed reporting to this story.
