Great Falls is less a raid city than Montana’s immigration processing hub: federal court, a county jail that holds ICE/CBP detainees, and cases that start elsewhere on the Hi-Line or in Gallatin County and then land here.
The Cascade County Detention Center is the only county jail in Montana contracted to hold ICE detainees longer than 72 hours. The county is paid a daily federal rate (reported around $115 per detainee in the 2021-era contract; officials have said federal inmates pay more than state inmates). Sheriff Jesse Slaughter has described that as a budget matter. Typical ICE/immigration counts at the jail have been small — often about a dozen immigration inmate listings, though total federal-contract inmates can be much higher.
The U.S. District Court in Great Falls (Missouri River Courthouse) handles many of the state’s illegal-reentry, document-fraud, and transport cases. Recent examples include sentences and ICE transfers under the Justice Department’s “Operation Take Back America,” plus habeas fights over detention. People arrested in Bozeman, Froid, Lewistown, Shelby, or along I-15/I-90 often appear or sit in Great Falls first.
Local police role is limited
Great Falls PD and Cascade County deputies say they do not enforce civil immigration law on their own and cannot arrest on an ICE warrant alone. They will call federal agents if they think immigration enforcement is needed during a local crime call. Montana law (MCA 2-1-601 through 605) bars cities from blocking cooperation with federal immigration agencies. Mayor Cory Reeves has said the city is not considering a non-cooperation resolution like Helena’s. Cascade County had a pending 287(g) listing in 2025 but did not appear on ICE’s public partner list.
Field operations vs. Great Falls as a holding point
Large street operations reported in 2025–26 were more often done in Gallatin County/Bozeman (ICE) and Border Patrol along the Hi-Line and I-90 (Havre Sector, Sweetgrass, St. Regis), not mass raids downtown Great Falls. Great Falls still sees individual ICE/HSI arrests — for example a British resident detained at work in November 2025 over an alleged visa overstay, and a 2025 case where GFPD called ICE to a trespassing scene.
Politics in town
City Commission meetings have drawn both sides.
There are residents asking the city not to assist ICE, and other residents backing federal agents and the jail contract. Commissioners have taken comment without passing an ICE resolution. There have also been protests at the federal courthouse after national ICE incidents.
Sanctuary cities
Montana’s sanctuary fight is not about a list of official “sanctuary cities.” The state banned those in 2021, before any Montana city had one. The live debate is whether cities may write local police rules that keep officers out of civil immigration work without violating that ban.
The state rule
House Bill 200, signed by Gov. Greg Gianforte, is now MCA 2-1-601 through 2-1-605. It says a city or county may not adopt a policy that stops officials from:
-
- exchanging citizenship or immigration-status information with federal agencies for a lawful purpose
- honoring lawful DHS notification requests about a release
- honoring a lawful immigration detainer when someone is already in custody
The attorney general investigates complaints. Penalties include $10,000 every five days of noncompliance and possible loss of certain state grant and commerce money.
Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock vetoed a similar bill in 2019 as a solution searching for a problem. The 2021 version passed largely along party lines. Gianforte was quoted as saying, “Immigration law will be enforced in Montana.” as he signed the legislation.
Critics note the statute never tightly defines “sanctuary city,” and Montana did not appear on later federal sanctuary lists. The League of Cities and Towns opposed HB 200 as a cut into local control.
What cities actually do
Most Montana departments already say they do not enforce federal civil immigration law and do not ask status on a routine stop. That is different from a written “we will not help ICE” resolution.
A few counties have signed 287(g) deals (local officers trained to do some ICE functions). State Highway Patrol and DCI also gained 287(g)-style authority in 2025. That is the opposite of sanctuary: more local help for federal immigration work.
Helena comes down with a sudden case of retard
Helena framed its resolution as writing down existing practice after high-profile arrests and national ICE tactics. Supporters said local cops should do local crime work, not civil deportation, and that trust with immigrant residents helps reporting of crime.
Knudsen and Gianforte called it an illegal sanctuary policy:
Cities do not set immigration law; voters rejected “open borders” policies; noncooperation hides people who should be removable.
The AG’s cease-and-desist said the resolution blocked stops/assistance based solely on status and told prosecutors to weigh immigration consequences of pleas. Helena’s lawyers answered that sharing was still allowed “as required by law,” including the anti-sanctuary statute itself, and that detainers on people already in custody were not refused.
The city hired outside counsel, then folded
Commissioners cited insolvency risk if $10,000/five-day fines stacked from January. The AG closed the case as moot and told Helena compliance is not a “collaborative enterprise.” Residents later asked the city to revive the idea after Bozeman-area sweeps and questions about an ICE holding site inside Helena city limits.
Montana is an anti-sanctuary state on paper, with cities that still try to keep local police out of civil immigration without using the word sanctuary.
Helena showed the cost of putting that in a resolution: investigation, fines in the statute, and a public climb-down.
Gallatin County’s fight with the AG shows the next front is records and prosecutors, not just city proclamations. Congressman Troy Downing has also floated cutting HUD money to non-cooperating cities — a federal echo of the same fight.
The unresolved legal question is how far a city can go in saying “we don’t do ICE’s job” before that becomes a banned “policy that restricts” cooperation under MCA 2-1-602. HB 200.
All of this hasn’t been fully tested in the Montana courts and until it is, the debate is going to be enforcement by letterhead and budget threat as much as it is by statute.
