1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:24,840
The initial temporary injunction allows all fishing to continue on the 19 disputed lakes.

2
00:00:24,840 --> 00:00:29,160
Following today's hearing, Judge William Conley will decide whether the lack to flambo

3
00:00:29,160 --> 00:00:35,320
has sovereign authority to restrict non-tribal members from fishing within its reservation.

4
00:00:35,320 --> 00:00:41,280
In other news, a lawsuit against five Wisconsin sheriffs in Walworth, Brown, Marathon, Kenosha,

5
00:00:41,280 --> 00:00:48,160
and Sauk counties over ice detainers or immigration holds waffles between being heard in state

6
00:00:48,160 --> 00:00:49,760
or federal court.

7
00:00:49,760 --> 00:00:54,840
A federal judge in Madison this month remanded the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

8
00:00:54,840 --> 00:00:59,680
The sheriffs won it heard in federal court and have appealed that remand.

9
00:00:59,680 --> 00:01:06,180
The question before any court is whether those 48 hour ice holds are legal in Wisconsin.

10
00:01:06,180 --> 00:01:11,240
Our next guest unpacks the issue, Brenna Goldar, staff attorney at the UW Law School

11
00:01:11,240 --> 00:01:14,520
State Democracy Research Initiative joins us now.

12
00:01:14,520 --> 00:01:15,520
Thanks very much for being here.

13
00:01:15,520 --> 00:01:16,520
Thanks for having me.

14
00:01:16,520 --> 00:01:20,400
Well, first of all, how does an ice detainer work?

15
00:01:20,760 --> 00:01:27,000
An ice detainer is a request sent by ice to local or state law enforcement agencies asking

16
00:01:27,000 --> 00:01:31,880
them to hold somebody for an additional 48 hours beyond when they would otherwise be

17
00:01:31,880 --> 00:01:32,880
released under state law.

18
00:01:32,880 --> 00:01:36,960
And these are voluntary requests so the local law enforcement officers can decide whether

19
00:01:36,960 --> 00:01:39,320
to follow that request or not.

20
00:01:39,320 --> 00:01:42,720
If they do follow it, then the person would remain in custody beyond when they would

21
00:01:42,720 --> 00:01:43,960
otherwise be released.

22
00:01:43,960 --> 00:01:45,920
Waiting for ice to come and retreat.

23
00:01:45,920 --> 00:01:46,920
Yes.

24
00:01:46,960 --> 00:01:52,640
And so how common is the use of these ice detainers across Wisconsin?

25
00:01:52,640 --> 00:01:59,360
So according to some data from October 2021 through June 2025, ice sent more than 3,300

26
00:01:59,360 --> 00:02:01,200
detainer requests.

27
00:02:01,200 --> 00:02:04,240
Not all of those were necessarily honored, but that's how many are coming in.

28
00:02:04,240 --> 00:02:09,000
And counties really vary in whether they are working with ice to honor those or if they

29
00:02:09,000 --> 00:02:12,240
have policies that limit how frequently they honor those detainers.

30
00:02:12,240 --> 00:02:16,560
Presumably this has ticked up during the current Trump administration.

31
00:02:16,560 --> 00:02:21,840
So what has that cooperation on the part of sheriffs and sheriffs departments resulted

32
00:02:21,840 --> 00:02:22,840
in?

33
00:02:22,840 --> 00:02:27,320
So the petitioner in this case are arguing that that results in unlawful detention of

34
00:02:27,320 --> 00:02:30,600
individuals passed when they would typically be released.

35
00:02:30,600 --> 00:02:34,960
And that can have significant impacts for individuals potentially dealing with childcare

36
00:02:34,960 --> 00:02:37,760
or dealing with missing work.

37
00:02:37,760 --> 00:02:40,320
This can apply to people who are not just at the end of a criminal sentence but also

38
00:02:40,320 --> 00:02:44,600
in pre-trial detention, so who might otherwise be detained for a relatively short time.

39
00:02:44,600 --> 00:02:47,040
Because additional couple of days can have a significant impact.

40
00:02:47,040 --> 00:02:52,080
And there are also concerns that cooperation between local law enforcement and ice can

41
00:02:52,080 --> 00:02:56,640
erode trust in local communities with law enforcement and lead to underreporting of

42
00:02:56,640 --> 00:03:00,720
crimes and less of a close relationship with the immigration community.

43
00:03:00,720 --> 00:03:06,960
So the lawsuit argues that these holds are not legal because sheriffs have no authority

44
00:03:06,960 --> 00:03:13,960
with administrative warrants to conduct a second arrest of someone.

45
00:03:13,960 --> 00:03:18,600
Would you expect that the state and federal courts would have a different view on that?

46
00:03:18,600 --> 00:03:22,960
I think it depends on whether they view this as really an issue of state law or federal

47
00:03:22,960 --> 00:03:23,960
law.

48
00:03:23,960 --> 00:03:28,680
So the plaintiffs in this case are arguing that this is really just an issue of state

49
00:03:28,680 --> 00:03:29,680
law.

50
00:03:29,680 --> 00:03:33,440
And that is something that you would sort of expect the Wisconsin courts to actually have

51
00:03:33,440 --> 00:03:37,480
the more expertise on and be able to decide in a more authoritative way.

52
00:03:37,480 --> 00:03:41,360
What the respondents are arguing is that there's this federal law issue of whether federal

53
00:03:41,360 --> 00:03:46,040
law sort of independently provides some basis for that arrest authority.

54
00:03:46,040 --> 00:03:50,320
And so if they succeed in getting this case into federal court, the federal courts might

55
00:03:50,320 --> 00:03:51,320
be more open to that.

56
00:03:51,320 --> 00:03:54,920
And it seems like respondents think that federal court might be more favorable to it

57
00:03:54,920 --> 00:03:57,320
because they are seeking to get it into federal court.

58
00:03:57,320 --> 00:04:01,920
So Wisconsin law enforcement under state statute can arrest if there are reasonable grounds

59
00:04:01,920 --> 00:04:06,400
to believe that the person is committing or has committed a crime.

60
00:04:06,400 --> 00:04:14,400
Can an argument be that someone entering into the country illegally and staying constitutes

61
00:04:14,400 --> 00:04:15,560
a crime?

62
00:04:15,560 --> 00:04:21,720
So first of all, the statute, it is not a crime under state law to enter and be in the country

63
00:04:21,720 --> 00:04:22,720
unlawfully.

64
00:04:22,720 --> 00:04:25,680
And so it's not clear that that statute itself would give the authorization for state law

65
00:04:25,680 --> 00:04:28,720
enforcement to make that arrest.

66
00:04:28,720 --> 00:04:33,960
But even if it did, federal law only criminalizes a narrow subset of immigration violations,

67
00:04:33,960 --> 00:04:36,040
particularly entering the country unlawfully.

68
00:04:36,040 --> 00:04:40,240
So somebody, for example, who enters with a lawful visa and then overstays that visa

69
00:04:40,240 --> 00:04:43,200
has not actually committed a federal immigration crime.

70
00:04:43,200 --> 00:04:48,200
Also, ICE detainers can issue two folks with green cards who then are facing deportation

71
00:04:48,200 --> 00:04:53,120
proceedings because they have committed a crime subsequent to entering the country, but they

72
00:04:53,120 --> 00:04:57,120
are not actually unauthorized until they go through those proceedings.

73
00:04:57,120 --> 00:05:01,080
And so there are many people who are subject to ICE detainers who have not committed any

74
00:05:01,080 --> 00:05:02,640
sort of federal immigration crime.

75
00:05:03,120 --> 00:05:08,480
So if it is decided in state court, would it only apply in Wisconsin versus applying

76
00:05:08,480 --> 00:05:11,320
nationally if it was decided in federal court?

77
00:05:11,320 --> 00:05:12,320
Yes.

78
00:05:12,320 --> 00:05:14,760
So if it's decided in Wisconsin, it would only apply in Wisconsin.

79
00:05:14,760 --> 00:05:19,120
The reach of a federal court decision would depend on what issues they decide and also

80
00:05:19,120 --> 00:05:21,120
what level of court it gets to.

81
00:05:21,120 --> 00:05:26,240
So if the federal court ultimately rules mostly on Wisconsin law and based on Wisconsin statutes,

82
00:05:26,240 --> 00:05:28,280
then it wouldn't apply beyond the state.

83
00:05:28,280 --> 00:05:31,960
It would just sort of be persuasive to other courts like a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling

84
00:05:31,960 --> 00:05:33,600
would be as well.

85
00:05:33,600 --> 00:05:37,560
If the federal court were to rule on more of a blanket federal law issue, and particularly

86
00:05:37,560 --> 00:05:41,120
if that were to get appealed up to the Seventh Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court, then that

87
00:05:41,120 --> 00:05:43,400
could have broader national implications.

88
00:05:43,400 --> 00:05:46,280
Is that the ultimate goal for it to go all the way up?

89
00:05:46,280 --> 00:05:51,600
It's not clear that it is the merits briefing hasn't happened yet, either at the state level

90
00:05:51,600 --> 00:05:53,320
or at the federal court level.

91
00:05:53,320 --> 00:05:56,520
The federal court remanded based on a timing issue of the filing.

92
00:05:56,520 --> 00:06:00,920
And so we don't really have a good sense yet of how viable it would be for this to become

93
00:06:00,920 --> 00:06:03,280
really a major federal law case that goes all the way.

94
00:06:03,280 --> 00:06:04,280
All right.

95
00:06:04,280 --> 00:06:05,280
Well, we'll see what happens.

96
00:06:05,280 --> 00:06:06,440
Brynico Dar, thanks so much.

97
00:06:06,440 --> 00:06:07,440
Thank you.

98
00:06:07,440 --> 00:06:12,720
For more on this and other issues facing Wisconsin, visit our website at pbswisconsin.org and

99
00:06:12,720 --> 00:06:14,880
then click on the news tab.

100
00:06:14,880 --> 00:06:16,200
That's our program for tonight.

101
00:06:16,200 --> 00:06:17,920
I'm Frederica Freibert.

102
00:06:17,920 --> 00:06:18,520
Have a good weekend.