Minnesota Senate Bill SF598

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/27/25
• Refer: 1/27/25

Caption

Notice provided to United States immigration and Customs and Enforcement when a suspected undocumented person is being housed in a facility under the institution's control by certain publicly funded state and local institutions requirement provision

Summary

SF598 amends Minnesota Statutes section 631.50 to require certain publicly funded state and local institutions to inquire into the nationality of people in their custody or care and, if a person appears to be an undocumented alien, to notify the appropriate federal immigration officer. The bill applies to people convicted of felonies and committed to correctional facilities, county jails, or other state or county institutions, as well as to people committed because they are mentally ill and dangerous or pose a risk of harm due to mental illness. The notice must include identifying and case-related information such as the date and reason for conviction or commitment, the length of confinement, the person’s country of citizenship, and the date and port of last entry into the United States. The bill also adds a new requirement that by September 1, 2025, correctional and other covered institutions housing people serving felony sentences must review the immigration status of each such person and provide the same notice if the person appears to be undocumented.

Impact

The bill would expand and clarify Minnesota’s existing immigration-notification law for state and county institutions, extending the duty to inquire into nationality and notify federal immigration authorities to additional categories of institutional custody and adding a specific review requirement for felony-sentence populations. It would affect the Minnesota Department of Corrections, county jails, and other publicly funded institutions that house felony offenders or certain civilly committed individuals, and it would require staff to collect and transmit immigration-related information to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or other federal immigration officers.

Sentiment

The available record shows no committee testimony, votes, or recorded debate, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition in the provided materials. Based on the bill’s subject matter and caption, the measure appears to be framed as a public-safety and immigration-enforcement bill rather than a broad policy change, but the absence of discussion makes the overall sentiment difficult to gauge from the record alone.

Contention

The main points of contention likely center on whether state and local institutions should be required to investigate immigration status and share information with federal immigration authorities, especially in correctional and mental-health commitment settings. Supporters would likely view the bill as improving coordination with federal enforcement and public safety, while critics may raise concerns about civil liberties, due process, administrative burden, and the potential chilling effect on access to state institutions for immigrant communities. No specific objections or endorsements are recorded in the provided history.