Gallatin County, AG continue fight over immigration ‘policy’
Jordan Hansen
(Daily Montanan) Gallatin County Attorney General Audrey Cromwell responded to Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen on Monday following an April 23 letter to the county from the state threatening to exercise supervisory control over that office if it did not follow instructions from Knudsen regarding information sharing with federal immigration agencies.
The long-running legal dispute goes back to an opinion Cromwell issued nearly a year ago, when Gallatin County was considering entering an interlocal agreement with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, which she advised against.
Additionally, Knudsen has accused Gallatin County of having rules against sharing information with ICE, which she has argued is not true.
An Oct. 2, 2025, email sent by Cromwell’s office to local law enforcement states Gallatin County Attorney’s Office “does not legally recognize Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as a law enforcement agency entitled to receive Confidential Criminal Justice Information (CCJI).”
The two attorneys exchanged letters in early April, with Knudsen demanding the county rescind the policy and Cromwell saying it doesn’t exist.
Knudsen said Cromwell’s April 6 response to his April 3 letter, “confirms that the Gallatin County Attorney’s Office created a policy restricting the sharing of information with ICE in the form of legal advice purporting to distinguish between ICE’s civil and criminal enforcement activities” and added Montana law, “makes no such distinction.”
In response, on April 23, Knudsen requested Cromwell, “immediately recognize ICE in toto as a criminal justice agency in accordance with state law,” and to issue a memo to “to all relevant personnel stating that Gallatin County may share CCJI with ICE for civil immigration enforcement functions.”
Knudsen gave Cromwell until 5 p.m. on April 27, before he said his office would exercise supervisory control over the county attorney. Under state law, Knudsen has the ability to do that.
Powers given under state law to the attorney general, “include the power to order and direct county attorneys in all matters pertaining to the duties of their office. The county attorney shall, when ordered or directed by the attorney general, promptly institute and diligently prosecute in the proper court and in the name of the state of Montana any criminal or civil action or special proceeding.”
Cromwell wrote on April 27, ICE was acting, “for a civil purpose, not a criminal one” and needed to go through the proper process to access the confidential information it wanted.
Cromwell, underlining the words in her letter, wrote, it was “not a denial” of access.
“It is adherence to the rule of Montana law,” Cromwell wrote. “In this particular case, ICE was free to follow up at its discretion.”
Knudsen, on April 23, said Cromwell’s claim ICE “doesn’t qualify as a law enforcement agency in all contexts,” saying federal courts have “not adopted your novel distinction” and that her analysis “missed the mark.”
“It doesn’t matter if ICE is ‘seeking confidential criminal justice information for a civil administrative immigration purpose’ and ‘not for a criminal investigation or prosecution,’” Knudsen’s April 23 letter reads. “Montana law simply says ‘dissemination of confidential criminal justice information is restricted to criminal justice agencies.’ ICE is a criminal justice agency. Full stop.”
On Monday, Cromwell submitted a signed affidavit saying, “I have not issued any rule, order, or policy—formal or informal—to the Gallatin County Records Department or any other County agency regarding sharing information with ICE.”
While it was unclear if the attorney general’s office planned to exercise supervisory control, it’s not the first time his office has requested supervisory control — Knudsen unsuccessfully lobbied state Supreme Court last year to exercise that body’s supervisory control over Missoula District Court, saying they were running “roughshod” over other branches of state government. That came out of a controversial law redefining sex in the state.
The AG’s Office did not immediately respond to a comment regarding whether it still planned to exercise supervisory control or whether they planned to issue an opinion on the matter, which Cromwell has repeatedly asked for. The Attorney General of Montana may issue advisory opinions when asked.
Advisory opinions, written by the Attorney General’s Office, have the force of case law until a district court or supreme court decides a legal question. Montana law gives the Attorney General three months to issue an opinion after a request, unless the question’s complexity requires more time.
“Montana law expressly contemplates that county attorneys may request opinions from the Attorney General on questions of law arising in the course of their official duties,” Cromwell’s April 27 letter reads.
She added the refusal to do so “departs” from longstanding tradition and “leaves significant legal questions unresolved.”
Montana law allows the Legislature, state officials, city and county attorneys and other entities like city and counties to ask for an opinion when there’s a “question of law relating to their office.”
Cromwell then added, “I am compelled to question the basis for declining to act. The reasonable inference is that there is concern your office’s legal analysis may not withstand judicial scrutiny.”
She then gave a deadline to the Attorney General, saying she expected a formal opinion response by July 6.
“I remain prepared to follow a lawful and authoritative interpretation from your office,” Cromwell wrote. “Until then, I will continue to apply the statute as written.”