By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Wisconsin Supreme Court will directly hear a case brought by the ACLU on behalf of an immigrant rights group challenging the legality of local jails holding immigrant detainees at the request of federal authorities. The court, controlled 4-3 by liberal justices, will expedite the process, potentially reaching a final ruling by mid-2026. The lawsuit, filed against five county sheriffs, argues that honoring ICE detainers, which extend detention beyond state law requirements, constitutes illegal arrests. The ACLU contends that this practice, which has seen over 700 requests in the first seven months of the year, violates Wisconsin law, while the sheriffs maintain their actions are lawful within the existing framework.
Read the original article here
Wisconsin Supreme Court to decide if it’s legal for local jails to hold immigrants for ICE. The crux of the matter before the Wisconsin Supreme Court is whether local jails can legally hold individuals for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), even after they would otherwise be eligible for release under state law. It’s a question with significant implications, particularly concerning the balance of power between federal and local authorities, and the rights of individuals.
The fundamental issue boils down to the legality of ICE detainers. These are requests from ICE to local law enforcement to hold a person for an additional 48 hours after their scheduled release, to allow ICE agents time to take them into federal custody. The crux of the disagreement is whether these detainers, which are essentially administrative warrants, constitute a legitimate basis for continued detention under Wisconsin law.
The arguments seem to center around a critical point: local law enforcement is not authorized to enforce federal immigration laws. This creates a legal quandary. Can state facilities and personnel be compelled to detain individuals based on a federal request, effectively overriding state limitations on detainment? The question becomes, if an individual is held on an administrative warrant and hasn’t committed a crime under state law, should they be held for an extended period?
The proponents against holding the immigrants are likely using the ACLU’s argument, stating that holding someone beyond the time allowed by state law constitutes an illegal arrest. State law does not permit officers to make civil arrests, and immigration enforcement is, at its core, a civil matter. The argument is that unless a judicial warrant authorizing the extended detention is issued based on probable cause, it is an illegal detention.
Another significant concern is the potential for civil rights violations. Critics argue that ICE’s methods lack due process, and the detainers allow ICE to effectively round up individuals, many of whom have no criminal record, solely on suspicion of being in the country illegally. The fact that ICE often acts without warrants or adhering to traditional legal processes raises questions about the fairness of these detentions. The concern here is the potential for innocent people and even U.S. citizens to be caught up in the process.
On the other hand, a central argument for allowing the practice is the assertion that it enables law enforcement agencies to maintain security. The idea is that continuing to hold those suspected of immigration violations can prevent them from absconding and facilitate their eventual deportation. Another argument is that holding individuals in local jails is preferable to the alternative: the creation of dedicated, potentially inhumane, ICE detention facilities. Some people feel as if jails already exist as places for detaining criminals so there’s not a large jump.
There’s also a financial component. Jails are often paid by ICE to hold people. It gives the argument for being able to house people in better conditions.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision will have a ripple effect. If the court sides with the ACLU and restricts local jails from honoring ICE detainers, it could significantly impact ICE’s ability to detain individuals in Wisconsin. ICE would then have to rely on other means to take those they suspect of violating immigration laws into custody, potentially increasing their costs and logistical challenges.
Ultimately, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is tasked with a complex legal question that touches on fundamental rights, the relationship between federal and state authority, and the practical realities of immigration enforcement. The court’s decision will have significant implications for immigrants, local law enforcement agencies, and the broader debate over immigration policy in the state and beyond. It is not just a question of who gets held where, but about the extent to which local authorities can be compelled to participate in federal immigration enforcement and the constitutional rights of individuals caught up in the process.