1
00:00:18,690 --> 00:00:20,389
The initial temporary injunction

2
00:00:20,390 --> 00:00:22,269
allows all fishing to continue

3
00:00:22,270 --> 00:00:24,769
on the 19 disputed lakes.

4
00:00:24,770 --> 00:00:25,949
Following today's hearing, Judge

5
00:00:25,950 --> 00:00:27,889
William Connolly will decide whether

6
00:00:27,890 --> 00:00:29,969
the Lac du Flambeau has sovereign

7
00:00:29,970 --> 00:00:32,129
authority to restrict non-tribal

8
00:00:32,130 --> 00:00:33,929
members from fishing within its

9
00:00:33,930 --> 00:00:35,269
reservation.

10
00:00:35,270 --> 00:00:36,989
In other news, a lawsuit against

11
00:00:36,990 --> 00:00:38,929
five Wisconsin sheriffs in

12
00:00:38,930 --> 00:00:40,749
Walworth, Brown, Marathon,

13
00:00:40,750 --> 00:00:43,049
Kenosha, and Sauk counties over

14
00:00:43,050 --> 00:00:45,129
ice detainers or immigration

15
00:00:45,130 --> 00:00:47,239
hold. Waffles between being

16
00:00:47,240 --> 00:00:49,919
heard in state or federal court.

17
00:00:49,920 --> 00:00:51,379
A federal judge in Madison this

18
00:00:51,380 --> 00:00:52,979
month remanded the case to the

19
00:00:52,980 --> 00:00:54,879
Wisconsin Supreme Court.

20
00:00:54,880 --> 00:00:56,899
The sheriffs wanted heard in federal

21
00:00:56,900 --> 00:00:59,679
court and have appealed that remand.

22
00:00:59,680 --> 00:01:01,699
The question before any court is

23
00:01:01,700 --> 00:01:03,599
whether those 48 hour ice

24
00:01:03,600 --> 00:01:06,179
holds are legal in Wisconsin.

25
00:01:06,180 --> 00:01:08,479
Our next guest unpacks the issue.

26
00:01:08,480 --> 00:01:10,439
Brenna Goldar, staff attorney at the

27
00:01:10,440 --> 00:01:12,379
UW Law School State Democracy

28
00:01:12,380 --> 00:01:14,519
Research Initiative joins us now.

29
00:01:14,520 --> 00:01:15,719
Thanks very much for being here.

30
00:01:15,720 --> 00:01:16,679
Thanks for having me.

31
00:01:16,680 --> 00:01:18,579
Well, first of all, how does

32
00:01:18,580 --> 00:01:20,689
an ice detainer work?

33
00:01:20,690 --> 00:01:22,829
An ICE detainer is a request

34
00:01:22,830 --> 00:01:24,749
sent by ICE to local

35
00:01:24,750 --> 00:01:26,349
or state law enforcement agencies

36
00:01:26,350 --> 00:01:28,309
asking them to hold somebody

37
00:01:28,310 --> 00:01:30,469
for an additional 48 hours

38
00:01:30,470 --> 00:01:32,089
beyond when they would otherwise be

39
00:01:32,090 --> 00:01:33,449
released under state law.

40
00:01:33,450 --> 00:01:35,189
These are voluntary requests so the

41
00:01:35,190 --> 00:01:36,529
local law enforcement officers can

42
00:01:36,530 --> 00:01:38,109
decide whether to follow that

43
00:01:38,110 --> 00:01:39,249
request or not.

44
00:01:39,250 --> 00:01:40,929
If they do follow it then the person

45
00:01:40,930 --> 00:01:42,589
would remain in custody beyond when

46
00:01:42,590 --> 00:01:43,759
it would otherwise be released.

47
00:01:43,760 --> 00:01:46,009
Waiting for ICE to come and retreat.

48
00:01:46,010 --> 00:01:48,179
Yes, and so how common?

49
00:01:48,180 --> 00:01:50,299
Uh... Is the use of these ice

50
00:01:50,300 --> 00:01:51,029
detainers

51
00:01:51,030 --> 00:01:52,569
across Wisconsin?

52
00:01:52,570 --> 00:01:54,029
So according to some data from

53
00:01:54,030 --> 00:01:56,809
October 2021 through June 2025,

54
00:01:56,810 --> 00:01:59,269
ICE sent more than 3,300

55
00:01:59,270 --> 00:02:01,029
detainer requests.

56
00:02:01,030 --> 00:02:02,169
Not all of those were necessarily

57
00:02:02,170 --> 00:02:03,369
honored, but that's how many are

58
00:02:03,370 --> 00:02:04,269
coming in.

59
00:02:04,270 --> 00:02:05,429
And counties really vary in whether

60
00:02:05,430 --> 00:02:07,569
they are working

61
00:02:07,570 --> 00:02:09,109
with ICE to honor those, or if they

62
00:02:09,110 --> 00:02:10,349
have policies that limit how

63
00:02:10,350 --> 00:02:11,569
frequently they honor those

64
00:02:11,570 --> 00:02:12,149
detainers.

65
00:02:12,150 --> 00:02:14,089
Presumably this has ticked up

66
00:02:14,090 --> 00:02:15,449
during the current Trump

67
00:02:15,450 --> 00:02:16,509
administration.

68
00:02:16,510 --> 00:02:18,429
So what has that cooperation

69
00:02:18,430 --> 00:02:20,329
on the part of sheriffs and

70
00:02:20,330 --> 00:02:22,639
sheriff's departments resulted in?

71
00:02:22,640 --> 00:02:24,539
So the petitioners in this case are

72
00:02:24,540 --> 00:02:26,039
arguing that that results in

73
00:02:26,040 --> 00:02:28,039
unlawful detention of individuals

74
00:02:28,040 --> 00:02:29,819
past when they would typically be

75
00:02:29,820 --> 00:02:31,019
released. And that can have

76
00:02:31,020 --> 00:02:33,119
significant impacts for individuals

77
00:02:33,120 --> 00:02:34,839
potentially dealing with child care

78
00:02:34,840 --> 00:02:36,939
or dealing with missing

79
00:02:36,940 --> 00:02:38,639
work. This can apply to people who

80
00:02:38,640 --> 00:02:39,659
are not just at the end of a criminal

81
00:02:39,660 --> 00:02:41,019
sentence, but also in pre-trial

82
00:02:41,020 --> 00:02:42,679
detention, so who might otherwise be

83
00:02:42,680 --> 00:02:43,779
detained for a relatively short

84
00:02:43,780 --> 00:02:45,259
time. Those additional couple of

85
00:02:45,260 --> 00:02:46,839
days can have a significant impact.

86
00:02:46,840 --> 00:02:48,539
And there are also concerns that

87
00:02:48,540 --> 00:02:49,799
cooperation between local law

88
00:02:49,800 --> 00:02:52,049
enforcement and ICE Can.

89
00:02:52,050 --> 00:02:54,169
Erode trust in local communities

90
00:02:54,170 --> 00:02:55,989
with law enforcement and lead to

91
00:02:55,990 --> 00:02:58,049
under-reporting of crimes and

92
00:02:58,050 --> 00:02:59,389
less of a close relationship with

93
00:02:59,390 --> 00:03:00,959
the immigration community.

94
00:03:00,960 --> 00:03:02,899
The lawsuit argues that these holds

95
00:03:02,900 --> 00:03:04,939
are not legal because

96
00:03:04,940 --> 00:03:07,099
sheriffs have no authority

97
00:03:07,100 --> 00:03:09,199
with administrative warrants

98
00:03:09,200 --> 00:03:11,319
to conduct a

99
00:03:11,320 --> 00:03:13,819
second arrest of someone.

100
00:03:13,820 --> 00:03:15,399
Would you expect that the state and

101
00:03:15,400 --> 00:03:16,719
federal courts would have a

102
00:03:16,720 --> 00:03:18,619
different view on that?

103
00:03:18,620 --> 00:03:20,559
I think it depends on whether

104
00:03:20,560 --> 00:03:22,059
they view this as really an issue of

105
00:03:22,060 --> 00:03:23,999
state law or federal law.

106
00:03:24,000 --> 00:03:25,959
So the plaintiffs in

107
00:03:25,960 --> 00:03:27,699
this case are arguing that this is

108
00:03:27,700 --> 00:03:29,379
really just an issue of state-law,

109
00:03:29,380 --> 00:03:31,059
and that is something that you would

110
00:03:31,060 --> 00:03:32,579
sort of expect the Wisconsin courts

111
00:03:32,580 --> 00:03:34,379
to actually have the more expertise

112
00:03:34,380 --> 00:03:36,119
on and be able to decide in a more

113
00:03:36,120 --> 00:03:37,419
authoritative way.

114
00:03:37,420 --> 00:03:38,879
What the respondents are arguing is

115
00:03:38,880 --> 00:03:40,739
that there's this federal law issue

116
00:03:40,740 --> 00:03:42,039
of whether federal law sort of

117
00:03:42,040 --> 00:03:44,179
independently provides some basis.

118
00:03:44,180 --> 00:03:46,119
For that arrest authority, and

119
00:03:46,120 --> 00:03:47,719
so if they succeed in getting this

120
00:03:47,720 --> 00:03:49,639
case into federal court, the

121
00:03:49,640 --> 00:03:51,399
federal courts might be more open to

122
00:03:51,400 --> 00:03:52,439
that, and it seems like respondents

123
00:03:52,440 --> 00:03:53,719
think that federal court might be

124
00:03:53,720 --> 00:03:55,559
favorable to it because they are

125
00:03:55,560 --> 00:03:56,679
seeking to get it into federal

126
00:03:56,680 --> 00:03:57,159
courts.

127
00:03:57,160 --> 00:03:59,059
So Wisconsin law enforcement under

128
00:03:59,060 --> 00:04:00,919
state statute can arrest if there

129
00:04:00,920 --> 00:04:02,579
are reasonable grounds to believe

130
00:04:02,580 --> 00:04:04,479
that the person is committing or has

131
00:04:04,480 --> 00:04:06,379
committed a crime.

132
00:04:06,380 --> 00:04:08,319
Wouldn't an argument be that

133
00:04:08,320 --> 00:04:10,239
someone entering into the

134
00:04:10,240 --> 00:04:12,279
country illegally and

135
00:04:12,280 --> 00:04:14,439
staying constitutes

136
00:04:14,440 --> 00:04:15,469
a crime?

137
00:04:15,470 --> 00:04:17,909
So first of all, the statute,

138
00:04:17,910 --> 00:04:20,009
it is not a crime under state law

139
00:04:20,010 --> 00:04:21,849
to enter and be in the country

140
00:04:21,850 --> 00:04:22,869
unlawfully. And so it's not clear

141
00:04:22,870 --> 00:04:24,289
that that statute itself would give

142
00:04:24,290 --> 00:04:25,829
the authorization for state law

143
00:04:25,830 --> 00:04:27,709
enforcement to make that

144
00:04:27,710 --> 00:04:28,669
arrest.

145
00:04:28,670 --> 00:04:30,569
But even if it did, federal law only

146
00:04:30,570 --> 00:04:32,589
criminalizes a narrow subset

147
00:04:32,590 --> 00:04:34,129
of immigration violations,

148
00:04:34,130 --> 00:04:35,609
particularly entering the country on

149
00:04:35,610 --> 00:04:37,249
lawfully. So somebody, for example,

150
00:04:37,250 --> 00:04:38,789
who enters with a lawful visa and

151
00:04:38,790 --> 00:04:40,649
then overstays that visa, has not

152
00:04:40,650 --> 00:04:41,669
actually committed a federal

153
00:04:41,670 --> 00:04:42,989
immigration crime.

154
00:04:42,990 --> 00:04:44,709
Also ICE detainers can issue to

155
00:04:44,710 --> 00:04:46,789
folks with green cards who then

156
00:04:46,790 --> 00:04:48,749
are facing deportation proceedings

157
00:04:48,750 --> 00:04:50,989
because they have committed a

158
00:04:50,990 --> 00:04:52,709
crime subsequent to entering the

159
00:04:52,710 --> 00:04:54,429
country, but they are not actually

160
00:04:54,430 --> 00:04:56,349
unauthorized until they go through

161
00:04:56,350 --> 00:04:57,129
those proceedings.

162
00:04:57,130 --> 00:04:58,749
And so there are many people who are

163
00:04:58,750 --> 00:05:00,709
subject to ICE detains who have not

164
00:05:00,710 --> 00:05:02,049
committed any sort of federal

165
00:05:02,050 --> 00:05:03,029
immigration crime.

166
00:05:03,030 --> 00:05:03,969
So if it is just

167
00:05:03,970 --> 00:05:06,069
Would it only

168
00:05:06,070 --> 00:05:08,169
apply in Wisconsin versus

169
00:05:08,170 --> 00:05:09,969
applying nationally if it was

170
00:05:09,970 --> 00:05:11,409
decided in federal court?

171
00:05:11,410 --> 00:05:12,589
Yes, so if it's decided in

172
00:05:12,590 --> 00:05:13,809
Wisconsin, it would only apply in

173
00:05:13,810 --> 00:05:14,749
Wisconsin.

174
00:05:14,750 --> 00:05:16,069
The reach of a federal court

175
00:05:16,070 --> 00:05:17,969
decision would depend on what

176
00:05:17,970 --> 00:05:19,409
issues they decide and also what

177
00:05:19,410 --> 00:05:21,049
level of court it gets to.

178
00:05:21,050 --> 00:05:22,749
So if the federal court ultimately

179
00:05:22,750 --> 00:05:24,629
rules mostly on Wisconsin law and

180
00:05:24,630 --> 00:05:26,529
based on Wisconsin statutes, then it

181
00:05:26,530 --> 00:05:28,269
wouldn't apply beyond the state.

182
00:05:28,270 --> 00:05:29,689
It would just sort of be persuasive

183
00:05:29,690 --> 00:05:31,249
to other courts, like a Wisconsin

184
00:05:31,250 --> 00:05:32,529
Supreme Court ruling would be as

185
00:05:32,530 --> 00:05:34,509
well, if the Federal Court were

186
00:05:34,510 --> 00:05:36,309
to rule on more of a blanket federal

187
00:05:36,310 --> 00:05:37,869
law issue and particularly if that

188
00:05:37,870 --> 00:05:39,009
were to get appealed up to the

189
00:05:39,010 --> 00:05:40,249
Seventh Circuit of the U.S.

190
00:05:40,250 --> 00:05:41,579
Supreme Court. Then that could have

191
00:05:41,580 --> 00:05:43,179
broader national implications.

192
00:05:43,180 --> 00:05:44,899
Is that the ultimate goal for it to

193
00:05:44,900 --> 00:05:46,169
go all the way up?

194
00:05:46,170 --> 00:05:48,169
It's not clear that it is.

195
00:05:48,170 --> 00:05:49,609
The merits briefing hasn't happened

196
00:05:49,610 --> 00:05:51,449
yet, either at the state

197
00:05:51,450 --> 00:05:53,349
level or at the federal court level.

198
00:05:53,350 --> 00:05:54,849
The federal court remanded based on

199
00:05:54,850 --> 00:05:56,709
a timing issue of the filing, and

200
00:05:56,710 --> 00:05:58,049
so we don't really have a good sense

201
00:05:58,050 --> 00:05:59,909
yet of how viable it would be

202
00:05:59,910 --> 00:06:01,669
for this to become really a major

203
00:06:01,670 --> 00:06:03,029
federal law case that goes all the

204
00:06:03,030 --> 00:06:03,369
way.

205
00:06:03,370 --> 00:06:04,369
Alright, well we'll see what

206
00:06:04,370 --> 00:06:06,029
happens. Brinna Goddard, thanks so

207
00:06:06,030 --> 00:06:07,409
much. Thank you.

208
00:06:07,410 --> 00:06:08,849
For more on this and other issues

209
00:06:08,850 --> 00:06:10,689
facing Wisconsin, visit our website

210
00:06:10,690 --> 00:06:12,589
at pbswisconsin.org

211
00:06:12,590 --> 00:06:14,749
and then click on the news tab.

212
00:06:14,750 --> 00:06:16,309
That's our program for tonight.

213
00:06:16,310 --> 00:06:17,829
I'm Frederica Freiburg.

214
00:06:17,830 --> 00:06:18,830
Have a good weekend.