1
00:00:02,302 --> 00:00:04,738
authority to restrict
non-tribal members from

2
00:00:04,805 --> 00:00:07,708
fishing within its
reservation. In other news,

3
00:00:07,774 --> 00:00:11,111
a lawsuit against five
Wisconsin sheriffs in

4
00:00:11,178 --> 00:00:14,982
Walworth, Brower marathon,
Kenosha and Sauk counties

5
00:00:15,048 --> 00:00:18,552
over Ice detainers or
immigration holds waffles

6
00:00:18,619 --> 00:00:22,122
between being heard in
state or federal court. A

7
00:00:22,189 --> 00:00:24,424
federal judge in Madison
this month remanded the

8
00:00:24,491 --> 00:00:27,494
case to the Wisconsin
Supreme Court. The sheriffs

9
00:00:27,561 --> 00:00:30,297
wanted heard in federal
court and have appealed

10
00:00:30,364 --> 00:00:34,134
that remand. The question
before any court is whether

11
00:00:34,201 --> 00:00:38,372
those 48 hour ice holds are
legal in Wisconsin. Our

12
00:00:38,438 --> 00:00:41,542
next guest unpacks the
issue. Bryna Godar, staff

13
00:00:41,608 --> 00:00:44,511
attorney at the UW Law
School State Democracy

14
00:00:44,578 --> 00:00:46,847
Research Initiative, joins
us now. Thanks very much

15
00:00:46,914 --> 00:00:48,649
for being here.
>> Thanks for having me.

16
00:00:48,715 --> 00:00:52,352
>> Well, first of all, how
does an Ice detainer work?

17
00:00:52,419 --> 00:00:56,256
>> An Ice detainer is a
request sent by Ice to

18
00:00:56,323 --> 00:00:58,892
local or state law
enforcement agencies,

19
00:00:58,959 --> 00:01:02,296
asking them to hold
somebody for an additional

20
00:01:02,362 --> 00:01:04,498
48 hours beyond when they
would otherwise be released

21
00:01:04,565 --> 00:01:06,967
under state law. And these
are voluntary requests. So

22
00:01:07,034 --> 00:01:09,436
the local law enforcement
officers can decide whether

23
00:01:09,503 --> 00:01:12,239
to follow that request or
not. If they do follow it,

24
00:01:12,306 --> 00:01:14,174
then the person would
remain in custody beyond

25
00:01:14,241 --> 00:01:15,843
when they would otherwise
be released.

26
00:01:15,909 --> 00:01:17,945
>> Waiting for Ice to come
and retrieve them.

27
00:01:18,011 --> 00:01:21,181
>> Yes. Yeah.
>> And so how common is the

28
00:01:21,248 --> 00:01:24,451
use of these Ice detainers
across Wisconsin?

29
00:01:24,518 --> 00:01:27,254
>> So according to some
data from October 2021

30
00:01:27,321 --> 00:01:31,992
through June 2025, I sent
more than 3300 detainer

31
00:01:32,059 --> 00:01:36,230
requests. Not all of those
were necessarily honored,

32
00:01:36,296 --> 00:01:38,265
coming in. And counties
really vary in whether they

33
00:01:38,332 --> 00:01:41,401
are working with Ice to
honor those, or if they

34
00:01:41,468 --> 00:01:43,203
have policies that limit
how frequently they honor

35
00:01:43,270 --> 00:01:45,339
those detainers.
>> Presumably, this has

36
00:01:45,405 --> 00:01:48,208
ticked up during the
current Trump

37
00:01:48,275 --> 00:01:50,544
administration. So what has
that cooperation on the

38
00:01:50,611 --> 00:01:53,480
part of sheriffs and
sheriff's departments

39
00:01:53,547 --> 00:01:55,782
resulted in?
>> So the petitioners in

40
00:01:55,849 --> 00:01:58,986
this case are arguing that
that results in unlawful

41
00:01:59,052 --> 00:02:01,388
detention of individuals
past when they would

42
00:02:01,455 --> 00:02:03,590
typically be released. And
that can have significant

43
00:02:03,657 --> 00:02:06,360
impacts for individuals
potentially dealing with

44
00:02:06,426 --> 00:02:09,863
child care or dealing with
missing work. This can

45
00:02:09,930 --> 00:02:12,833
apply to people who are not
just at the end of a

46
00:02:12,900 --> 00:02:14,868
criminal sentence, but also
in pretrial detention. So

47
00:02:14,935 --> 00:02:16,837
who might otherwise be
detained for a relatively

48
00:02:16,904 --> 00:02:18,805
short time? Those
additional couple days can

49
00:02:18,872 --> 00:02:20,908
have a significant impact.
And there are also concerns

50
00:02:20,974 --> 00:02:23,076
that cooperation between
local law enforcement and

51
00:02:23,143 --> 00:02:26,680
Ice can erode trust in
local communities with law

52
00:02:26,747 --> 00:02:29,483
enforcement, and lead to
underreporting of crimes

53
00:02:29,550 --> 00:02:31,318
and less of a close
relationship with the

54
00:02:31,385 --> 00:02:34,254
immigration community.
>> So the lawsuit argues

55
00:02:34,321 --> 00:02:37,824
that these holds are not
legal because sheriffs have

56
00:02:37,891 --> 00:02:42,629
no authority with
administrative warrants to

57
00:02:42,696 --> 00:02:46,633
conduct a second arrest of
someone. Would you expect

58
00:02:46,700 --> 00:02:48,635
that the state and federal
courts would have a

59
00:02:48,702 --> 00:02:52,306
different view on that?
>> I think it depends on

60
00:02:52,372 --> 00:02:54,675
whether they view this as
really an issue of state

61
00:02:54,741 --> 00:02:58,846
law or federal law. So the
plaintiffs in this case are

62
00:02:58,912 --> 00:03:01,548
arguing that this is really
just an issue of state law.

63
00:03:01,615 --> 00:03:03,617
And that is something that
you would sort of expect

64
00:03:03,684 --> 00:03:05,786
the Wisconsin courts to
actually have the more

65
00:03:05,853 --> 00:03:08,555
expertise on and be able to
decide in a more

66
00:03:08,622 --> 00:03:10,958
authoritative way. What the
respondents are arguing is

67
00:03:11,024 --> 00:03:12,993
that there's this federal
law issue of whether

68
00:03:13,060 --> 00:03:15,562
federal law sort of
independently provides some

69
00:03:15,629 --> 00:03:18,498
basis for that arrest
authority. And so if they

70
00:03:18,565 --> 00:03:21,201
succeed in getting this
case into federal court,

71
00:03:21,268 --> 00:03:23,971
the federal courts might be
more open to that. And it

72
00:03:24,037 --> 00:03:26,006
seems like respondents
think that federal court

73
00:03:26,073 --> 00:03:27,774
might be more favorable to
it because they are seeking

74
00:03:27,841 --> 00:03:30,511
to get it into federal
court.

75
00:03:31,044 --> 00:03:32,613
enforcement, under state
statute, can arrest if

76
00:03:32,679 --> 00:03:35,249
there are reasonable
grounds to believe that the

77
00:03:35,315 --> 00:03:38,385
person is committing or has
committed a crime. Wouldn't

78
00:03:38,452 --> 00:03:43,624
an argument be that someone
entering into the country

79
00:03:43,690 --> 00:03:47,694
illegally and staying
constitutes a crime?

80
00:03:47,761 --> 00:03:50,898
>> So first of all, the
statute, it is not a crime

81
00:03:50,964 --> 00:03:53,934
under state law to enter
and be in the country

82
00:03:54,001 --> 00:03:56,203
unlawfully. And so it's not
clear that that statute

83
00:03:56,270 --> 00:03:58,238
itself would give the
authorization for state law

84
00:03:58,305 --> 00:04:01,575
enforcement to make that
arrest. But even if it did,

85
00:04:01,642 --> 00:04:04,111
federal law only
criminalizes a narrow

86
00:04:04,178 --> 00:04:06,813
subset of immigration
violations, particularly

87
00:04:06,880 --> 00:04:08,515
entering the country
unlawfully. So somebody,

88
00:04:08,582 --> 00:04:11,084
for example, who enters
with a lawful visa and then

89
00:04:11,151 --> 00:04:14,154
overstays that visa has not
actually committed a

90
00:04:14,221 --> 00:04:16,190
federal immigration crime.
Also, Ice detainers can

91
00:04:16,256 --> 00:04:20,160
issue two folks with green
cards who then are facing

92
00:04:20,227 --> 00:04:22,663
deportation proceedings
because they have committed

93
00:04:22,729 --> 00:04:25,032
a crime subsequent to
entering the country, but

94
00:04:25,098 --> 00:04:28,035
they are not actually
unauthorized until they go

95
00:04:28,101 --> 00:04:30,204
through those proceedings.
And so there are many

96
00:04:30,270 --> 00:04:32,739
people who are subject to
Ice detainers who have not

97
00:04:32,806 --> 00:04:35,075
committed any sort of
federal immigration crime.

98
00:04:35,142 --> 00:04:38,078
>> So if it is decided in
state court, would it only

99
00:04:38,145 --> 00:04:41,381
apply in Wisconsin versus
applying nationally if it

100
00:04:41,448 --> 00:04:43,517
was decided in federal
court?

101
00:04:43,584 --> 00:04:46,053
>> Yes. So if it's decided
in Wisconsin, it would only

102
00:04:46,119 --> 00:04:48,622
apply in Wisconsin. The
reach of a federal court

103
00:04:48,689 --> 00:04:51,158
decision would depend on
what issues they decide and

104
00:04:51,225 --> 00:04:53,927
also what level of court it
gets to. So if the federal

105
00:04:53,994 --> 00:04:56,496
court ultimately rules
mostly on Wisconsin law and

106
00:04:56,563 --> 00:04:59,433
based on Wisconsin statutes,
then it wouldn't apply

107
00:04:59,499 --> 00:05:02,069
beyond the state. It would
just sort of be persuasive

108
00:05:02,135 --> 00:05:04,137
to other courts, like a
Wisconsin Supreme Court

109
00:05:04,204 --> 00:05:06,473
ruling would be as well, if
the federal court were to

110
00:05:06,540 --> 00:05:09,576
rule on more of a blanket
federal law issue, and

111
00:05:09,643 --> 00:05:11,211
particularly if that were
to get appealed up to the

112
00:05:11,278 --> 00:05:13,947
Seventh Circuit or the US
Supreme Court, then that

113
00:05:14,014 --> 00:05:16,083
could have broader national
implications.

114
00:05:16,149 --> 00:05:19,052
goal, for it to go all the
way up?

115
00:05:20,287 --> 00:05:22,856
is. The merits briefing
hasn't happened yet, either

116
00:05:22,923 --> 00:05:25,092
at the state level or at
the federal court level.

117
00:05:25,158 --> 00:05:27,794
The Federal court remanded
based on a timing issue of

118
00:05:27,861 --> 00:05:30,664
the filing. And so we don't
really have a good sense

119
00:05:30,731 --> 00:05:33,200
yet of how viable it would
be for this to become

120
00:05:33,267 --> 00:05:38,172
really a major federal law
really a major federal law