Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen on Thursday demanded the Gallatin County Attorney rescind what Knudsen says is an illegal “policy” refusing to recognize U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement as a criminal justice agency and share confidential information.

But County Attorney Audrey Cromwell refuted the AG’s characterization of a policy and said in a statement Knudsen was conflating an individual instance involving a civil matter with a county policy.

“It is important to be clear: there is no blanket policy in Gallatin County prohibiting cooperation with ICE or any federal agency, nor is there a policy restricting the sharing of information,” Cromwell wrote in a statement. “The County Commission, not the County Attorney’s Office, is the only body with the authority to establish county policy.”

Image

Knudsen’s letter said the county attorney’s policy “puts the safety of Gallatin County Residents at risk and undermines law enforcement operations to crack down on illegal immigration in Montana.”

He referenced an October 2, 2025, email sent by Cromwell’s office to local law enforcement that states the 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).”

“Cromwell’s policy is a flagrant violation of state and federal law and puts the safety of Gallatin County residents at risk just to make a political statement,” Knudsen said in a press statement. The Department said Cromwell has until Monday, April 6, to rescind the policy or Knudsen will “take immediate action.”

The Department of Justice did not respond to questions from the Daily Montanan about what actions might be pursued.

However, a press response from Cromwell’s office said the county attorney has “a legal and ethical obligation to ensure that individuals’ rights to privacy are protected.”

Specifically addressing the AG’s concern over the October email, Cromwell’s office wrote in a statement that last September the Gallatin County Records Department received requests from ICE seeking confidential criminal justice information and reached out to the county attorney’s office for guidance.

In the specific instance, according to the county attorney’s office, ICE had requested “nonpublic CCJI regarding an individual for a civil matter.”

“After legal review, the civil division of the County Attorney’s Office determined that ICE, in this context, was not acting as a ‘criminal justice agency’ under Montana’s CCJI statutes because the request was civil in nature and did not fall within the statutory definition tied to the administration of criminal justice,” the response states. “To that end, our office advised the Records Department that a District Court Judge should determine whether the CCJI should be released in that matter.”

Image

Under Montana law, confidential criminal justice information — which can include criminal investigation information or intelligence and fingerprints — is considered nonpublic and only be shared with “criminal justice agencies” as defined in state statute.

The statutory definition of a criminal justice agency is tied to agencies authorized to perform administration of criminal justice, including detection, apprehension, detention, prosecution, adjudication, or rehabilitation of criminal offenders.

The Gallatin County Attorney’s Office had determined that in the specific ICE request last fall, the agency was not acting as a criminal justice agency because the request was civil in nature.

Cromwell acknowledged in the statement the October email sent by a legal assistant came while she was in a trial and that she takes responsibility for “any confusion that may have resulted.”

“That communication addressed a specific legal question about a particular case. It was not and should not be considered ‘policy.’ Typically, such guidance would come directly from me or one of my attorneys,” Cromwell said in her statement. “There is no overarching policy at play.”

“Ultimately, our obligation remains clear: to uphold and protect individuals’ constitutional right to privacy as required by Montana law,” Cromwell said. “I look forward to responding further to Attorney General Knudsen on this matter.”

Cromwell’s office said a direct response to the Attorney General is planned by April 6.

Knudsen’s office had said the alleged policy could be a violation of Montana’s law banning sanctuary cities by limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Just last week, the City of Helena rescinded an immigration resolution after Knudsen announced an investigation into the measure, alleged it was illegal and violated the state’s sanctuary city ban, and threatened financial penalties.

This isn’t the first time Knudsen has clashed with Cromwell.

Last April, Knudsen sent a letter to the Gallatin County Commissioners criticizing a legal opinion by Cromwell, which argued against entering into an agreement with ICE to detain undocumented immigrants from across the state at the Gallatin County Detention Center.

Cromwell called Knudsen’s actions at the time “political theater” and said the county has the longest-standing agreement with ICE in Montana.