FACTS

On February 4, 2025, Sherriff Dan Marx made a Facebook post on the Winneshiek County Sherriff’s Department profile addressing citizens’ concerns regarding the Department’s potential involvement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement Officials (“ICE”).[1] In the post, Sheriff Marx stated the sheriff’s office “oath and allegiance” belonged to the U.S. Constitution and his office would only comply with ICE’s requests to detain people that were within the constitution’s parameters—ensuring ICE officials take proper procedure to obtain a valid judicial warrant before detaining a person.[2] The post has since been deleted, but it read in part:

[I]f the fed’s actions and paperwork are within constitutional parameters (such as proper and valid judicial warrants/court orders) we will assist if needed or requested to ensure their actions are carried out professionally and in the least intrusive fashion possible. If their actions or paperwork are not within constitutional parameters (such as non-judicially vetted “detainers,” which are very different than warrants and are simply an unconstitutional “request” from ICE or other three letter federal agency to arrest or hold someone), then we will make every effort to block, interfere and interrupt their actions from moving forward.[3]

Following the post, Governor Kim Reynolds sent a letter to Sherriff Dan Marx and the Winneshiek County Board of Supervisors “reminding them of their obligation to follow state law and comply with ICE’s enforcement of our immigration laws.”[4] Governor Reynolds’ letter directed the Sherriff to Iowa Code chapter 27A which outlines Iowa law enforcement’s duty to comply with federal immigration laws.[5] Under Iowa Code § 27A.8, the Governor’s letter also served as a complaint to the attorney general alleging Sherriff Marx and the Winneshiek County Sherriff’s Department had violated Iowa Code chapter 27A.[6]

            Pursuant to the complaint, Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird (“Attorney General”) opened an investigation into Sheriff Marx, his office, and their policies surrounding immigration enforcement.[7] Although the Attorney General concluded that (1) the Winneshiek County Immigration Enforcement Policy complies with Iowa Code chapter 27A, (2) Sherriff Marx’s office had honored and effectuated all detainer requests received after November 26, 2018 from ICE, and (3) the Winneshiek Sheriff Department policy on immigration was satisfactory, she nonetheless determined the Facebook post was “intentional,” under Iowa Code § 27A.8(3).[8] To remedy the harm, Attorney General Bird told Sherrif Marx he could delete the original post and replace it with one which affirms his commitment to complying with federal immigration officials and renounces his original statement.[9] If Sheriff Marx fulfilled Attorney General Bird’s suggested remedy, she would consider the investigation closed.[10] 

Sheriff Marx deleted his February 4th Facebook post; however, he declined to post the proposed statement.[11] On March 27, 2025, Attorney General Bird sued Winneshiek County Sheriff Marx for violating Iowa Code chapter 27A.[12]

LEGAL ANALYSIS

            In 2018, Iowa passed the “sanctuary cities” law, now Iowa Code chapter 27A.[13] The law requires law enforcement agencies to comply with detainer requests issued by ICE for persons in their custody.[14] Additionally, the law ensures that local entities’ policies, procedures, and actions are in accord with federal immigration laws.[15] Under Iowa Code § 27A.4(1), “a local entity shall not adopt or enforce a policy or take any other action under which the local entity prohibits or discourages the enforcement of immigration laws.”[16]  Further, under Iowa Code § 27A.4(2), “a local entity shall not prohibit or discourage a person who is a law enforcement officer . . . or any other official who is employed by or otherwise under the direction or control of the local entity from,” inquiring about a person’s immigration status, sending information regarding a lawfully detained person’s immigration status to ICE, or assisting or cooperating with ICE officials.[17] If a local entity is judicially determined to have violated Iowa Code chapter 27A, the punishment is a loss of state funding from all state agencies for the local entity.[18]  However, ninety days after the judicial decision, the local entity is eligible to have state funding reinstated if they have provided documentation that they are in full compliance with Iowa Code chapter 27A.[19]

            Attorney General Bird has alleged that Sherriff Marx’s February 4th Facebook post was intentionally shared to discourage enforcement of federal immigration law.[20] Admittedly, Sheriff Marx’s post stated his office would “block, interfere and interrupt” ICE actions backed by immigration detainers, rather than a judicially valid warrant.[21]

            An immigration detainer is used by ICE officials when they have identified a person held in a jail or prison as potentially deportable.[22] The request asks federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies to notify them before they release the identified person or hold the identified person for up to 48 hours beyond the time they would usually be released.[23] In other words, it asks law enforcement to hold those identified individuals beyond what is required by them, so ICE can then take custody of the individual. To issue a detainer request, ICE is required to have probable cause to believe the identified person is potentially deportable, subject to a few exceptions.[24] The ICE officer issues the detainer request.[25] This is different than a judicially valid warrant, which is issued by a judge (or magistrate) after they determine there is probable cause.[26] Additionally, such detainer requests are just that, requests, and law enforcement compliance with such a request is voluntary and subject to their discretion.[27] 

However, Iowa’s sanctuary law makes local law enforcement’s compliance mandatory.[28] When the law passed, law enforcement officials expressed their opposition, arguing that it creates public distrust with their officials and directs their local resources to assist ICE.[29] Additionally, as Sherriff Marx stated in his Facebook post, many individuals do not trust ICE and how their agents “conduct business.”[30] Plus, as is being currently shown, ICE’s determination to deport individuals is not always verified. This past week, ICE officials admitted that “an ‘administrative error’ and ‘oversight’ resulted in a Salvadoran man’s deportation and imprisonment in a supermax prison in El Salvador, despite a legal order prohibiting his removal there.”[31] 

Permitting law enforcement to use discretion for detainer requests is essential to ensuring that “oversight” mistakes, like the above mentioned, do not happen. Yet, Iowa lawmakers want to take the punishment for law enforcement officers who do not comply with or suggest complying with detainer requests a step further. The bill, created in response to Sherriff Marx’s post, proposes referring the violating officer “to the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy Council with the recommendation that their certification be revoked.”[32]  As the law currently stands, if Sherriff Marx were found judicially liable, the county would lose funding.[33] However, in her investigative report, Attorney General Bird concedes that Sherrif Marx’s and Winneshiek County policies are in compliance with state law.[34] She notes that the Sheriff’s office has honored all detainer requests made since the passing of the sanctuary city law.[35] So, if the Sheriff is found liable, ninety days after the judicial decision, he is eligible to petition to have the county’s funding reinstated.[36] 

CONCLUSION

            Iowa Attorney General Bird is using her office’s resources to sue Sheriff Marx, despite concluding in her investigation that the county’s immigration enforcement policy complies with Iowa Code chapter 27A and the sheriff’s office having a clean history in complying with ICE’s detainer requests. According to Attorney General Bird, she gave Sherriff Marx the chance to resolve the investigation by deleting his February 4th post and replacing it with a message similar to the one she curated. Instead, and thankfully, Sheriff Marx chose not to post the message as it’s language “was not acceptable to the county.”[37] Sherriff Marx’s stance is commendable for holding ICE accountable and protecting individuals’ human rights.