This article reflects North Dakota law and enforcement conditions as of June 2026. North Dakota has enacted two layers of anti-sanctuary legislation: HB 1155 (2023) prohibited sanctuary policies statewide for all state entities, local governments, and higher education institutions; HB 1303 (2025, signed by Gov. Kelly Armstrong) added financial enforcement through a Sanctuary Compliance Fund - localities found in violation by the Attorney General face state funding withholding. As of May 2025, four North Dakota counties had active 287(g) agreements with ICE: Dunn County Sheriff's Office, McKenzie County Sheriff's Office (both signed March 2025), Dickinson Police Department (signed March 2025), and Eddy County Sheriff's Office (signed May 2025). In May 2025, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security placed seven rural North Dakota counties on its sanctuary jurisdictions list: Billings, Golden Valley, Grant, Morton, Ramsey, Sioux, and Slope Counties. The North Dakota Sheriffs and Deputies Association disputed the designation as 'misinformation and a mischaracterization,' saying none of those counties had adopted sanctuary policies. North Dakota's undocumented immigrant population is small - estimated at approximately 3,000-5,000 people, less than 1 percent of the state's total population. The state's immigrant communities are concentrated in Fargo, Bismarck, and the oil-producing counties of western North Dakota (McKenzie, Dunn, Williams). ICE holds rooms and enforcement operations occur statewide through the Minneapolis and Denver field offices. Verify current 287(g) agreements and enforcement conditions with the ACLU of North Dakota at aclund.org.
Where North Dakota Stands
North Dakota is among the smallest-population states in this series in terms of both total and undocumented immigrant populations, but its enforcement posture is clearly aligned with the Trump administration's immigration agenda. The state enacted a sanctuary ban in 2023 and strengthened it with financial penalties in 2025. Four counties had active 287(g) agreements by May 2025. The state's Republican-dominated legislature has passed immigration enforcement legislation with near-unanimous margins.
The editorial distinctiveness of North Dakota's story is a contradiction at the heart of its 2025 enforcement push: the federal government placed seven rural North Dakota counties on its sanctuary jurisdictions list in May 2025, while the North Dakota Sheriffs and Deputies Association protested that designation as 'misinformation and a mischaracterization' - insisting that none of those counties had adopted sanctuary policies. The counties named - Billings, Golden Valley, Grant, Morton, Ramsey, Sioux, and Slope - are small rural counties where sheriffs said they cooperated with ICE but simply had not entered formal written agreements. The sanctuary designation appeared to be based on the absence of formal documentation rather than any deliberate policy of non-cooperation.
North Dakota's immigrant communities are concentrated in two distinct areas: the urban centers of Fargo and Bismarck, which have refugee resettlement communities from Somalia, Bhutan, and other countries; and the western oil country - McKenzie, Dunn, and Williams Counties in the Bakken oil formation - which drew significant immigrant labor during the oil boom years and retains diverse communities. The enforcement posture in the oil counties (several of which have 287(g) agreements) is notably different from the urban areas. Fargo, the state's largest city and home to a significant refugee community, is not among the counties with 287(g) agreements as of the information available.
Part 1: What Federal Immigration Law Actually Says
Immigration enforcement is exclusively a federal function under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The federal government controls who may enter, remain in, and be removed from the United States. State and local governments cannot create their own immigration enforcement systems that conflict with the INA.
The Tenth Amendment anti-commandeering doctrine, established in Printz v. United States (1997), means the federal government cannot compel state and local agencies to enforce federal immigration law. North Dakota's approach, like similar states in this series, works around this principle by directing its own subdivisions to cooperate - the state is exercising authority over its own political subdivisions rather than the federal government compelling them directly.
Section 287(g) of the INA creates the voluntary delegation mechanism through which local agencies take on immigration enforcement functions. North Dakota has four active 287(g) agreements as of May 2025, all signed after Trump's second inauguration. The Jail Enforcement Model agreements allow trained local officers to question and process individuals already in local custody for state charges. This is distinct from the Task Force Model, which authorizes immigration enforcement in the community during routine patrol.
ICE detainers, Form I-247, are administrative requests, not court orders. North Dakota has no state law specifically mandating detainer compliance, but its anti-sanctuary laws prohibit policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, which practically means localities cannot adopt policies of refusing detainers. In the absence of explicit detainer compliance mandates, individual county jails retain some discretion in how they respond to administrative detainers, though the sanctuary ban and Sanctuary Compliance Fund create financial pressure to cooperate.
Arizona v. United States (2012) is the controlling preemption precedent. North Dakota's laws ban sanctuary policies rather than creating an independent state immigration enforcement scheme, placing them within the constitutional space the Court defined.
Part 2: North Dakota State Law
HB 1155 (2023) - Sanctuary Ban Foundation
House Bill 1155, signed by then-Gov. Doug Burgum in 2023, is the foundational layer of North Dakota's immigration enforcement framework. The law passed the House 80-11 and the Senate 40-4, both along party lines. The law prohibits the state, cities, counties, and higher education institutions from adopting policies that: inhibit local authorities from reporting undocumented immigrants to federal officials; or grant undocumented immigrants the legal right to remain in a jurisdiction. The law also covered the state Board of Higher Education, making it one of the few states at the time to explicitly ban sanctuary policies at public universities. North Dakota's sponsor framed it as proactive legislation to prevent sanctuary policies from taking hold, noting that no North Dakota city had adopted a sanctuary ordinance - the bill was preventive rather than responsive.
HB 1303 (2025) - Sanctuary Compliance Fund and Financial Penalties
House Bill 1303, signed by Gov. Kelly Armstrong in 2025, builds on HB 1155 by adding a financial enforcement mechanism. The law passed the House 82-11 and the Senate 41-5, again with near-unanimous Republican support. HB 1303 amends North Dakota Century Code section 44-08-25 to strengthen the sanctuary ban and create the Sanctuary Compliance Fund.
Under HB 1303, complaints alleging unlawful sanctuary city policies may be filed by anyone with the Attorney General. If the AG determines that a political subdivision has adopted a sanctuary policy, the AG must issue an official opinion. The political subdivision then has 30 days to appeal or provide evidence that the policy has been rescinded. If a violation is confirmed, the state treasurer withholds state funding from that jurisdiction and deposits the funds into the newly created Sanctuary Compliance Fund. The fund can redistribute money to compliant political subdivisions. Any policy adopted in violation of these provisions is automatically void.
HB 1303 specifies the prohibited actions in detail. Localities cannot: withhold a person's citizenship status from federal authorities; grant temporary legal residency status to a noncitizen unlawfully present; take any action to limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities; impede the transfer of unauthorized immigrants to federal custody; or prevent law enforcement from inquiring about a person's citizenship status. The financial penalty mechanism - loss of state funding - is the practical enforcement tool. North Dakota has no Democratic governor to veto these measures, and Gov. Armstrong signed them as part of the 2025 session that produced nearly 500 bills.
287(g) Agreements in North Dakota - As of May 2025
Four North Dakota law enforcement agencies held active 287(g) agreements with ICE as of May 2025, all signed during the first months of Trump's second term. The Dunn County Sheriff's Office, McKenzie County Sheriff's Office, and Dickinson Police Department signed agreements in March 2025. The Eddy County Sheriff's Office signed its agreement in May 2025. These agencies operate primarily under the Jail Enforcement Model, which allows trained deputies to question and process individuals already in local custody on state charges - not to conduct immigration enforcement in the community or on the street. Verify the current list of 287(g) agencies in North Dakota with the ACLU of North Dakota at aclund.org, as the number of agreements has been growing nationally.
The 287(g) agreements in North Dakota are geographically notable: Dunn County and McKenzie County are in the Bakken oil formation in western North Dakota, where immigrant labor has historically been significant in oil field services. Dickinson is the seat of Stark County and a hub for the western oil economy. Eddy County is a small rural county in central North Dakota. The presence of oil country counties in the 287(g) program reflects the enforcement priorities of local sheriffs in areas with larger immigrant worker populations relative to the broader state average.
The DHS Sanctuary List Controversy - May 2025
In May 2025, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security published a list of sanctuary jurisdictions across the country. Seven North Dakota counties appeared on that list: Billings County, Golden Valley County, Grant County, Morton County, Ramsey County, Sioux County, and Slope County. The North Dakota Sheriffs and Deputies Association publicly disputed the designation, calling it 'misinformation and a mischaracterization.' Sheriff representatives stated that none of those counties had adopted sanctuary policies limiting cooperation with ICE - they simply had not entered formal written 287(g) agreements or posted formal cooperation policies.
The controversy illustrates a definitional issue at the heart of the Trump administration's sanctuary jurisdiction lists: the DHS appeared to be flagging the absence of affirmative formal cooperation documentation rather than the presence of deliberate non-cooperation policies. The NDSDA's pushback highlights that the sanctuary designation in small rural states can be more about administrative paperwork than actual enforcement posture. Morton County, notably, is the county where Bismarck is located - the state capital - and had not adopted any sanctuary ordinance.
Part 3: How State and Federal Law Interact in North Dakota
North Dakota's framework rests on the prohibition of formal sanctuary policies and the financial penalty mechanism for violations. The state has not enacted a mandatory detainer compliance law like North Carolina's HB 10 or mandatory 287(g) requirements like what SB 153 would create in North Carolina. Instead, it has created a legal and financial environment in which no local government can formally limit ICE cooperation, while individual law enforcement agencies retain discretion to enter or not enter 287(g) agreements.
The Tenth Amendment analysis supports North Dakota's approach. The state is directing its own subdivisions to cooperate - not the federal government compelling them. The financial penalty mechanism operates through the state's own funding relationship with local governments, which is a recognized state authority. Local governments in North Dakota that receive state funding have financial reason to comply with the sanctuary ban.
North Dakota has no statewide mandatory detainer compliance law. This means that while localities cannot have policies refusing cooperation with ICE, individual jails retain some discretion in how they handle administrative detainers absent a formal 287(g) agreement. The distinction matters: the sanctuary ban prohibits policy-level non-cooperation, not every individual judgment call by jail staff. This is narrower than the mandatory detainer compliance regime in North Carolina.
Federal enforcement in North Dakota operates through the ICE Minneapolis Field Office (which covers North Dakota) and the Denver Field Office for southwestern counties. ICE operates directly and does not require North Dakota law enforcement cooperation for its own enforcement operations.
Part 4: What This Means for Families on the Ground
For immigrant families in North Dakota, the enforcement picture is shaped by the state's small immigrant population, the concentration of enforcement capacity in a handful of counties, and the absence of a mandatory statewide detainer compliance law. The risk profile is lower than in states like North Carolina or Georgia, but is concentrated in specific geographic areas.
Families in McKenzie and Dunn Counties - the Bakken oil field counties - face elevated enforcement risk because both sheriff's offices have 287(g) Jail Enforcement agreements. Any arrest in those counties that leads to jail booking creates potential ICE contact through the 287(g) program. Workers in oil field services, construction, and agricultural industries in western North Dakota should be aware of this risk.
Dickinson (Stark County) also has a 287(g) agreement through the Dickinson Police Department. Immigrant families in Dickinson and surrounding communities should know that a police arrest and booking in Dickinson can involve ICE contact through the 287(g) program.
Fargo and Cass County, home to North Dakota's largest city and a significant refugee and immigrant community, do not appear on the list of 287(g) agencies as of May 2025. The Fargo police and Cass County Sheriff had not signed formal agreements at that time. However, no Fargo area law enforcement can adopt a formal policy of non-cooperation with ICE under HB 1155 and HB 1303. Verify current Fargo-area 287(g) status at aclund.org.
North Dakota's refugee communities - particularly Somali, Bhutanese, and other communities resettled in Fargo - have legal immigration status and are not directly affected by ICE civil immigration enforcement in the same way undocumented immigrants are. However, family members with different immigration status, people with complex immigration histories, and people who entered on temporary visas that have expired may face enforcement risk.
The state's tribal nations - Standing Rock, Turtle Mountain, Three Affiliated Tribes, and others - have sovereign land and tribal law enforcement. Tribal territories are not subject to state sanctuary laws; tribal law enforcement operates under different federal frameworks. Families on or near tribal lands should consult with tribal legal resources about the specific enforcement posture in their community.
Part 5: What You Can Actually Do
If ICE Comes to Your Home
Do not open the door. ICE cannot legally enter a home without a judicial warrant signed by a judge. An administrative warrant, Form I-200 or I-205, is signed by an immigration officer, not a judge, and does not authorize home entry. Ask through the closed door whether the warrant is signed by a judge. If not, say clearly that you do not consent to entry.
You have the right to remain silent. You are not required to answer questions about your birthplace, how you entered the country, or your immigration status. Say: 'I am exercising my right to remain silent. I want to speak with a lawyer.' This applies regardless of immigration status.
Do not sign anything without speaking with an immigration attorney. Signing voluntary departure forms can permanently waive important legal rights.
If stopped in public, stay calm. Do not run. Do not physically resist. State that you are exercising your right to remain silent and want a lawyer. Ask if you are free to go. If yes, leave calmly.
If Arrested in McKenzie, Dunn, Dickinson, or Eddy County
In counties with 287(g) Jail Enforcement agreements, booking into the county jail on state charges creates direct ICE contact. Trained officers can question you about your immigration status and process you for immigration proceedings while you are in local custody. Request a lawyer immediately and do not answer questions about your immigration status during booking beyond what is legally required. Have the phone number of an immigration attorney or the ACLU of North Dakota memorized or written in a place accessible to family members.
If a Family Member Is Detained
Use the ICE Online Detainee Locator at locator.ice.gov immediately. You will need the person's country of birth and either their full name and date of birth or their A-Number (Alien Registration Number). North Dakota does not have a long-term ICE detention facility; individuals detained in North Dakota may be transferred to facilities in Minnesota, Colorado, or elsewhere.
Call the ICE Detention Reporting and Information Line: 1-888-351-4024.
Call the EOIR Immigration Court Information Line: 1-800-898-7180.
Contact the ACLU of North Dakota: aclund.org. The ACLU-ND has published resources on 287(g) agreements in North Dakota and monitors enforcement activity statewide.
Contact the North Dakota Human Rights Coalition: ndhumanrights.org. The NDHRC advocates for immigrant and refugee communities in North Dakota.
For immigration legal services: North Dakota Legal Services (ndlegalservices.org) provides civil legal services for low-income residents. Immigration attorneys in Fargo include Gokey Immigration Law (701-356-5995) and in Bismarck, Carranza Immigration Law (701-291-3442).
Know the Risk Points in North Dakota
Counties with 287(g) agreements - Dunn County, McKenzie County, Eddy County, and Dickinson (Stark County) - create elevated arrest-to-ICE-contact risk for anyone booked into those jail systems. Verify current agreements at aclund.org.
No North Dakota locality can adopt a formal policy of limiting ICE cooperation under HB 1155 and HB 1303. Financial penalties (state funding withholding) back up the prohibition.
North Dakota has no mandatory statewide detainer compliance law. Individual jails outside 287(g) counties retain some discretion on administrative detainers, but cannot have a formal non-cooperation policy.
Oil field communities in western North Dakota (Williston, Watford City, Killdeer) are in or near 287(g) counties. Workers in those areas should understand the elevated enforcement risk at the jail level.
Federal direct enforcement through the ICE Minneapolis Field Office covers North Dakota and can operate independently of any local cooperation framework.
Part 6: Legal Resources in North Dakota
ACLU of North Dakota: aclund.org. The primary resource for 287(g) information, enforcement monitoring, and Know Your Rights resources specific to North Dakota.
North Dakota Human Rights Coalition: ndhumanrights.org. Advocates for immigrant and refugee communities statewide.
North Dakota Legal Services: ndlegalservices.org. Free civil legal services for low-income North Dakotans.
Gokey Immigration Law (Fargo): (701) 356-5995, 1129 5th Avenue South, Fargo, ND 58103.
Carranza Immigration Law (Bismarck): (701) 291-3442, 1500 East Capitol Ave, Suite 303, Bismarck, ND 58501.
Catholic Charities North Dakota: ccnd.org. Catholic Charities provides refugee resettlement and some immigration support services.
Immigration Advocates Network: immigrationadvocates.org.
EOIR Immigration Court Information Line: 1-800-898-7180.
ICE Detainee Locator: locator.ice.gov.
ICE Detention Reporting and Information Line: 1-888-351-4024.
Summary
North Dakota has enacted two layers of anti-sanctuary legislation. HB 1155 (2023) prohibited sanctuary policies for all state entities, local governments, and higher education institutions. HB 1303 (2025, signed by Gov. Armstrong) added financial penalties through a Sanctuary Compliance Fund - localities in violation face state funding withholding. Four counties had active 287(g) Jail Enforcement agreements as of May 2025: Dunn County, McKenzie County, Eddy County, and Dickinson (through the Dickinson Police Department). In May 2025, DHS placed seven rural North Dakota counties on its sanctuary list despite the North Dakota Sheriffs and Deputies Association calling the designation misinformation - those counties had not adopted formal non-cooperation policies, they simply lacked formal cooperation documentation.
For families in North Dakota, the primary enforcement risk is concentrated in the 287(g) counties of western North Dakota and Dickinson. Any jail booking in those counties creates direct ICE contact through trained officers. No North Dakota locality can formally limit ICE cooperation. There is no statewide mandatory detainer compliance law, giving individual jails outside 287(g) counties some discretion. North Dakota has no long-term ICE detention facility; people detained here are transferred out of state. Contact the ACLU of North Dakota for current 287(g) agency status and enforcement guidance, and act immediately to locate a detained family member using the ICE Detainee Locator before transfer occurs.
Sources and verification: North Dakota HB 1155 (2023, sanctuary ban, signed Gov. Burgum); North Dakota HB 1303 (2025, Sanctuary Compliance Fund, signed Gov. Armstrong); InForum/Grand Forks Herald, 'North Dakota Legislature Approves Bill to Enforce Anti-Sanctuary City Laws,' April 9, 2025; InForum, 'Nearly 500 Bills Signed into Law in North Dakota,' April 28-29, 2025 (HB 1303 signed); ACLU of North Dakota, 'What Are 287(g) Agreements and How Do They Fuel Trump's Mass Deportations?' May 22, 2025 (Dunn County, McKenzie County, Dickinson PD March 2025; Eddy County May 2025); Valley News Live, 'Misinformation and a Mischaracterization: North Dakota Law Enforcement Upset with Sanctuary Jurisdiction Accusation,' May 30, 2025 (seven ND counties on DHS sanctuary list: Billings, Golden Valley, Grant, Morton, Ramsey, Sioux, Slope; ND Sheriffs and Deputies Association dispute); BillTrack50, ND HB1303 2025-2026 (bill text and vote tallies); DHS ICE 287(g) program page (ice.gov); North Dakota HHS Immigration Services (immigration attorneys list); Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012); Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). Volatile items requiring verification: Current list of North Dakota 287(g) agencies (four as of May 2025; verify at aclund.org or ice.gov); resolution of the DHS sanctuary county designations for Billings, Golden Valley, Grant, Morton, Ramsey, Sioux, and Slope Counties; any new state-level detainer compliance legislation. Last verified: June 2026.