Leaked Emails Reveal Lawyers’ Plan to Protect Undocumented Immigrants from ICE

A group of Minnesota criminal defense attorneys reportedly collaborated on a strategy to shield their illegal immigrant clients from potential Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests, according to leaked emails obtained by Fox News Digital.

The emails, which were sent to members of the Minnesota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (MACDL) on February 6, detail a coordinated effort to transition court hearings to virtual formats, allegedly to prevent ICE from detaining non-citizen defendants.

This revelation coincided with a legal opinion issued the same day by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, who stated that state law prohibits law enforcement from detaining individuals solely on the basis of an ICE immigration detainer unless there is an independent legal basis for holding them. Ellison clarified that ICE detainers are requests, not mandatory orders, reinforcing the argument that state officials are not required to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.

Among the most revealing messages was an email titled “ICE at the PSF”, which appeared to reference the Public Safety Facility (PSF) in Hennepin County, a major courthouse and jail complex in Minneapolis. The sender warned fellow attorneys that plainclothes ICE officers had been spotted at the facility, urging them to take precautions to protect their clients.

Below is the full transcript of the email:

From: [Redacted]
To: MACDL Members
Subject: ICE at the PSF

Heads-up, everyone—ICE plainclothes agents have been spotted at the Hennepin County Public Safety Facility. If you have clients with immigration concerns, do what you can to ensure their safety. Virtual hearings may be the best option right now.

The email sparked a series of responses from attorneys proposing ways to prevent their clients from coming into contact with ICE officers. Some advocated for requesting Zoom court appearances while others suggested using alternative justifications for virtual hearings—without explicitly citing immigration concerns.

One attorney, Ronnie Santana from Tamburino Law Group, wrote:

From: Ronnie Santana
To: MACDL Members
Subject: Re: ICE at the PSF

Thanks for the heads-up. Are we seeing any push to make virtual hearings standard statewide? If not, maybe we should consider discussing a more coordinated effort.

Attorney JaneAnne Murray of Murray Law LLC replied, confirming that she had already taken action to secure a virtual hearing for one of her clients based on their immigration status.

From: JaneAnne Murray
To: MACDL Members
Subject: Re: ICE at the PSF

I requested a Zoom appearance for a client with an immigration issue. The court clerk allowed it, but I had to be there in person. The prosecutor wasn’t consulted. Would be good to make this process more consistent.

Another attorney, Barry Cattadoris from the Third Judicial District Public Defender’s Office, stated that some judges were already encouraging Zoom hearings when immigration concerns were involved, particularly in light of ICE’s increasing presence at courthouses.

From: Barry Cattadoris
To: MACDL Members
Subject: Re: ICE at the PSF

Several judges have indicated they’ll “liberally” grant Zoom requests in cases where ICE might be waiting. This could be something we all take advantage of.

One attorney cautioned against explicitly citing immigration concerns in these requests, recommending instead that lawyers argue for virtual hearings based on interpretation needs or court efficiency.

From: [Redacted]
To: MACDL Members
Subject: Re: ICE at the PSF

We should avoid mentioning ICE outright when requesting Zoom hearings. A better approach might be arguing that interpreters work better over video, or citing logistical concerns.

Attorney Alicia Granse, who is affiliated with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), also weighed in, advising lawyers to reach out if their clients were detained on ICE holds. She hinted at the possibility of challenging these detentions in court, referencing past successful lawsuits.

From: Alicia Granse
To: MACDL Members
Subject: Re: ICE at the PSF

If you have clients detained solely on an ICE hold, reach out. We’ve had success challenging these cases. Courts have ruled before that people can’t be held without a judicial warrant supported by probable cause. We may be able to take legal action.

The leaked emails from members of the Minnesota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers highlight an ongoing and controversial legal battle between state-level legal advocacy and federal immigration enforcement. By strategizing to shift in-person court appearances to virtual formats, these attorneys aimed to prevent ICE from detaining their non-citizen clients, an effort that raises significant ethical and legal questions.

While some lawyers argue that they are merely protecting their clients from what they see as unjust enforcement tactics, critics contend that such maneuvers obstruct federal immigration law and could be seen as an abuse of judicial resources.

The legal landscape surrounding immigration enforcement remains complex. Attorney General Keith Ellison’s legal opinion reinforced the stance that local law enforcement is not obligated to comply with ICE detainer requests, further fueling the debate over state versus federal jurisdiction.

The emails suggest that some judges were sympathetic to these concerns, reportedly granting Zoom requests “liberally” in cases where ICE presence was suspected. However, the discussions also reveal an effort to obscure the true reason for these requests, with some attorneys recommending alternative justifications, such as the need for better interpreter access.

The involvement of the ACLU and the suggestion of potential lawsuits add another dimension to the controversy. If legal challenges successfully argue that ICE detentions without a judicial warrant violate constitutional protections, it could significantly impact how immigration enforcement is conducted at the state level.