The Wisconsin Supreme Court will take up a case over whether local jails detaining illegal immigrants at the request of federal authorities violates state law, in a case that could hinder federal immigration operations in the state.
The lawsuit the justices will hear targets the sheriffs of Walworth, Brown, Marathon, Kenosha, and Sauk counties, over their agreements with federal immigration authorities to detain illegal immigrants for additional time at the request of federal officers. The ACLU filed the lawsuit asking the Wisconsin Supreme Court to take up the case now, as opposed to going through lower state courts first, and claimed the agreements violate state law.
The Badger State’s high court, which has a 4-3 liberal majority, agreed to take up the case on Wednesday, it announced in an order. Conservative Justices Annette Ziegler and Rebecca Bradley dissented from taking up the case, while the other conservative justice, Brian Hagedorn, wrote a statement in which he did not explicitly reveal how he voted but appeared to hint that only the liberal justices opted to take up the case.
“Even if some of my colleagues publicly record their dissent, as in this case, that does not necessarily reveal which justices voted for or against the petition in closed conference. A grant order simply means the requisite number of justices voted to grant a petition—in this case, four—nothing more,” Hagedorn wrote.
The ACLU’s lawsuit alleges that the agreements “illegally deprive Wisconsin residents of their liberty” and that “Wisconsin law does not grant them the authority to make such arrests.”
The lawsuit challenges a system where, when federal immigration officers make detention requests, local jails will hold illegal immigrants for up to 48 additional hours to allow for federal officers to pick them up.
In response to the lawsuit, the sheriffs argued it “greatly oversimplifies the dispute” and defended the practice as something that has been ongoing for decades.
“The Petition makes no attempt even to address the constitutional, statutory, and common law duties and powers of Wisconsin sheriffs despite challenging the authority of Wisconsin sheriffs to engage in a practice that has occurred for decades,” the sheriffs’ filing to the court said. “And, this case implicates a highly-complicated area of the… federal immigration law and the relationship between federal and state and local law enforcement—and presents complex disputes that would be best resolved and refined through the ordinary litigation process.”
If the Wisconsin Supreme Court sides with the ACLU, such a ruling would complicate federal immigration authorities’ ability to pick up illegal immigrants detained by local law enforcement.
Federal immigration authorities have various agreements with hundreds of local law enforcement agencies across 40 states and Guam, facilitating their ability to bring detained illegal immigrants into federal custody. Of the 10 states where no law enforcement agencies have 287(g) agreements with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, six states bar cooperation as a matter of state law or policy, per the Department of Homeland Security. In Wisconsin, 17 local law enforcement agencies have agreements with ICE.
The high court in the Badger State is expected to hear arguments in the case early next year, with a decision likely coming in the middle of the year.
The Wisconsin court system and federal immigration operations are set to have another clash later this month, when Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan goes on trial in federal court for allegedly helping an illegal immigrant before her court evade ICE arrest by letting him and his lawyer out a backdoor exit. Dugan was charged with two counts of obstruction for her alleged actions.
SUPREME COURT GRAPPLES WITH ALLOWING PASTOR TO SUE OVER LAW HE HAS PREVIOUSLY VIOLATED
The trial for Dugan begins Dec. 15 in Milwaukee, with jury selection set to begin next week. Dugan has pleaded not guilty to both charges. The maximum sentence for the pair of charges includes six years in prison and a $350,000 fine if convicted.
A federal judge ruled late last month that Dugan’s lawyers may not introduce statements Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel made about her case. The Justice Department said during a status hearing last month that it expects to call 25 to 28 witnesses for the trial.
