Gallatin County Attorney Audrey Cromwell rebuts Knudsen on ICE information dispute

Gallatin County Attorney Audrey Cromwell is requesting Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen issue a binding legal opinion on an interagency information-sharing dispute between the county and the Montana Department of Justice.

Cromwell is making the request because she disagrees with Knudsen over whether Montana counties need to provide sensitive personally identifiable information for administrative or civil enforcement cases outside county jurisdiction, risking privacy.

"We are reviewing the county attorney's response to determine any necessary next steps," Chase Scheuer, Knudsen's deputy communications director said to a Chronicle request for comment.

One thing both Cromwell and Knudsen agree on — their conflict stems from one interaction six months ago.

“A formal opinion will provide the clear, statewide guidance needed for counties to navigate these complex legal issues,” Cromwell said in a statement Monday in direct response to a recent cease-and-desist letter from Knudsen’s office. “We remain committed to working with our law enforcement partners while ensuring we fully comply with Montana law and uphold the constitutional privacy rights of the people we serve.”

Cromwell’s demand could escalate into the courtroom. On a binding legal opinion request, a formal query from an authorized government official can be considered a controlling law for government entities until overruled by a court, per the Montana Legislature.

The request seeks guidance on whether counties can disseminate non-public confidential criminal justice information to federal agencies, including ICE, for non-criminal civil or administrative purposes without a court order. The county denied the original disputed October 2025 information demand from ICE partially because it was an administrative request and not for administering criminal justice, according to Cromwell’s office.

“That request was made by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for administrative purposes, not for a criminal investigation or prosecution,” Cromwell said.

The quote from Cromwell’s Monday response to Knudsen is the first time her office officially used the word “administrative” to categorize the request.

Cromwell’s office did inform immigration officials it does not legally recognize ICE as a law-enforcement agency entitled to confidential criminal justice information via her assistant Jack Veil in an October 2025 email. The MTDOJ waited until this month to send a cease-and-desist letter demanding Cromwell rescind an unlawful policy refusing to recognize ICE as a “criminal justice agency,” and share confidential criminal justice information.

“I am writing to inform you that the Gallatin County Attorney’s Office does not legally recognize Immigration and Customs Enforcement as a law enforcement agency entitled to receive CCJI,” Veil said in the email, which was attached to Knudsen’s order six months later.

The communication referenced by Knudsen is not and does not establish policy, Cromwell said.

Knudsen took to the social media platform X last week to criticize Cromwell.

“Montana is not California. A left-wing County Attorney does not have legal authority to determine that ICE is not a ‘legitimate law enforcement agency’,” Knudsen said. “Gallatin County may have a lot of CA transplants, but MT law still controls and I WILL enforce it.”

It remains unclear how Knudsen plans to enforce his claim that Cromwell isn’t coordinating with immigration officials. Cromwell still insists the issue-specific guidance addressed only one specific scenario requiring individualized legal analysis.

“In this instance, ICE’s request was civil in nature and did not fall within the statutory framework requiring disclosure to a criminal justice agency engaged in criminal enforcement,” she said. “The County Attorney’s Office advised that ICE follow the same judicial process required of any entity seeking access to protected records outside that framework, ensuring consistency, accountability, and protection of constitutional rights.”

While the Gallatin County Attorney’s Office legally advises county departments, all policy is set solely by the Gallatin County Commission, per Cromwell.

She maintains that the dissemination of confidential criminal justice information is strictly limited, as records can contain highly sensitive personal data, including personally identifiable information, dismissed or deferred criminal actions, criminal histories, and arrest records.

“Such information can only be shared under specific statutory circumstances, including when a requesting entity is engaged in the administration of criminal justice or when a district court must determine that the merits of disclosure outweigh an individual’s right to privacy,” Cromwell said.