Gallatin County dispute over ICE records reaches Montana Supreme Court

HELENA, Mont. — Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen asked the Montana Supreme Court on Thursday to reject a petition tied to a dispute over whether Gallatin County can withhold confidential criminal justice information from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials.

In the court filing, Knudsen argued that Gallatin County Attorney Audrey Cromwell wrongly advised county offices starting in October 2025 not to share that information with ICE. He said that Montana law allows ICE to receive the records.

Knudsen reportedly sent Cromwell a letter on April 2, 2026, instructing the county to change course and “immediately bring its practices into compliance with Montana law and recognize ICE as a criminal justice agency entitled to appropriate access to CCJI, consistent with applicable statutes and regulations.”

Court documents revealed that Cromwell pushed back in an April 6 reply and argued that an earlier ICE request “involved ICE seeking [CCJI] for a civil administrative immigration purpose,” so the agency was not entitled to the records.

Knudsen’s response noted that the central dispute is not just about reading one statute. It argued that the case also involves whether a county attorney can challenge the attorney general’s supervisory authority over county attorneys under state law.

The attorney general’s filing claimed that the Supreme Court should not become involved because the dispute is not fit for the court to decide, arguing that Cromwell lacks standing and any ruling would amount to an advisory opinion.

The response also stated that there is no statewide emergency and argued that if a proper legal challenge ever emerges, it could be handled in district court instead.

On the underlying legal question, Knudsen argued that Montana law does not require officials to examine why a criminal justice agency wants the records. The filing noted that the only question pertains to whether ICE qualifies as a criminal justice agency under Montana law.

The response argued that ICE does qualify and is therefore entitled to access the information. It also said Cromwell’s interpretation adds limits to the law that are not written into the statute.

This filing reflected only the attorney general’s position in the case. The petition at the center of the dispute remains before the Montana Supreme Court.