WEBVTT 00:00.000 --> 00:24.840 The initial temporary injunction allows all fishing to continue on the 19 disputed lakes. 00:24.840 --> 00:29.160 Following today's hearing, Judge William Conley will decide whether the lack to flambo 00:29.160 --> 00:35.320 has sovereign authority to restrict non-tribal members from fishing within its reservation. 00:35.320 --> 00:41.280 In other news, a lawsuit against five Wisconsin sheriffs in Walworth, Brown, Marathon, Kenosha, 00:41.280 --> 00:48.160 and Sauk counties over ice detainers or immigration holds waffles between being heard in state 00:48.160 --> 00:49.760 or federal court. 00:49.760 --> 00:54.840 A federal judge in Madison this month remanded the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. 00:54.840 --> 00:59.680 The sheriffs won it heard in federal court and have appealed that remand. 00:59.680 --> 01:06.180 The question before any court is whether those 48 hour ice holds are legal in Wisconsin. 01:06.180 --> 01:11.240 Our next guest unpacks the issue, Brenna Goldar, staff attorney at the UW Law School 01:11.240 --> 01:14.520 State Democracy Research Initiative joins us now. 01:14.520 --> 01:15.520 Thanks very much for being here. 01:15.520 --> 01:16.520 Thanks for having me. 01:16.520 --> 01:20.400 Well, first of all, how does an ice detainer work? 01:20.760 --> 01:27.000 An ice detainer is a request sent by ice to local or state law enforcement agencies asking 01:27.000 --> 01:31.880 them to hold somebody for an additional 48 hours beyond when they would otherwise be 01:31.880 --> 01:32.880 released under state law. 01:32.880 --> 01:36.960 And these are voluntary requests so the local law enforcement officers can decide whether 01:36.960 --> 01:39.320 to follow that request or not. 01:39.320 --> 01:42.720 If they do follow it, then the person would remain in custody beyond when they would 01:42.720 --> 01:43.960 otherwise be released. 01:43.960 --> 01:45.920 Waiting for ice to come and retreat. 01:45.920 --> 01:46.920 Yes. 01:46.960 --> 01:52.640 And so how common is the use of these ice detainers across Wisconsin? 01:52.640 --> 01:59.360 So according to some data from October 2021 through June 2025, ice sent more than 3,300 01:59.360 --> 02:01.200 detainer requests. 02:01.200 --> 02:04.240 Not all of those were necessarily honored, but that's how many are coming in. 02:04.240 --> 02:09.000 And counties really vary in whether they are working with ice to honor those or if they 02:09.000 --> 02:12.240 have policies that limit how frequently they honor those detainers. 02:12.240 --> 02:16.560 Presumably this has ticked up during the current Trump administration. 02:16.560 --> 02:21.840 So what has that cooperation on the part of sheriffs and sheriffs departments resulted 02:21.840 --> 02:22.840 in? 02:22.840 --> 02:27.320 So the petitioner in this case are arguing that that results in unlawful detention of 02:27.320 --> 02:30.600 individuals passed when they would typically be released. 02:30.600 --> 02:34.960 And that can have significant impacts for individuals potentially dealing with childcare 02:34.960 --> 02:37.760 or dealing with missing work. 02:37.760 --> 02:40.320 This can apply to people who are not just at the end of a criminal sentence but also 02:40.320 --> 02:44.600 in pre-trial detention, so who might otherwise be detained for a relatively short time. 02:44.600 --> 02:47.040 Because additional couple of days can have a significant impact. 02:47.040 --> 02:52.080 And there are also concerns that cooperation between local law enforcement and ice can 02:52.080 --> 02:56.640 erode trust in local communities with law enforcement and lead to underreporting of 02:56.640 --> 03:00.720 crimes and less of a close relationship with the immigration community. 03:00.720 --> 03:06.960 So the lawsuit argues that these holds are not legal because sheriffs have no authority 03:06.960 --> 03:13.960 with administrative warrants to conduct a second arrest of someone. 03:13.960 --> 03:18.600 Would you expect that the state and federal courts would have a different view on that? 03:18.600 --> 03:22.960 I think it depends on whether they view this as really an issue of state law or federal 03:22.960 --> 03:23.960 law. 03:23.960 --> 03:28.680 So the plaintiffs in this case are arguing that this is really just an issue of state 03:28.680 --> 03:29.680 law. 03:29.680 --> 03:33.440 And that is something that you would sort of expect the Wisconsin courts to actually have 03:33.440 --> 03:37.480 the more expertise on and be able to decide in a more authoritative way. 03:37.480 --> 03:41.360 What the respondents are arguing is that there's this federal law issue of whether federal 03:41.360 --> 03:46.040 law sort of independently provides some basis for that arrest authority. 03:46.040 --> 03:50.320 And so if they succeed in getting this case into federal court, the federal courts might 03:50.320 --> 03:51.320 be more open to that. 03:51.320 --> 03:54.920 And it seems like respondents think that federal court might be more favorable to it 03:54.920 --> 03:57.320 because they are seeking to get it into federal court. 03:57.320 --> 04:01.920 So Wisconsin law enforcement under state statute can arrest if there are reasonable grounds 04:01.920 --> 04:06.400 to believe that the person is committing or has committed a crime. 04:06.400 --> 04:14.400 Can an argument be that someone entering into the country illegally and staying constitutes 04:14.400 --> 04:15.560 a crime? 04:15.560 --> 04:21.720 So first of all, the statute, it is not a crime under state law to enter and be in the country 04:21.720 --> 04:22.720 unlawfully. 04:22.720 --> 04:25.680 And so it's not clear that that statute itself would give the authorization for state law 04:25.680 --> 04:28.720 enforcement to make that arrest. 04:28.720 --> 04:33.960 But even if it did, federal law only criminalizes a narrow subset of immigration violations, 04:33.960 --> 04:36.040 particularly entering the country unlawfully. 04:36.040 --> 04:40.240 So somebody, for example, who enters with a lawful visa and then overstays that visa 04:40.240 --> 04:43.200 has not actually committed a federal immigration crime. 04:43.200 --> 04:48.200 Also, ICE detainers can issue two folks with green cards who then are facing deportation 04:48.200 --> 04:53.120 proceedings because they have committed a crime subsequent to entering the country, but they 04:53.120 --> 04:57.120 are not actually unauthorized until they go through those proceedings. 04:57.120 --> 05:01.080 And so there are many people who are subject to ICE detainers who have not committed any 05:01.080 --> 05:02.640 sort of federal immigration crime. 05:03.120 --> 05:08.480 So if it is decided in state court, would it only apply in Wisconsin versus applying 05:08.480 --> 05:11.320 nationally if it was decided in federal court? 05:11.320 --> 05:12.320 Yes. 05:12.320 --> 05:14.760 So if it's decided in Wisconsin, it would only apply in Wisconsin. 05:14.760 --> 05:19.120 The reach of a federal court decision would depend on what issues they decide and also 05:19.120 --> 05:21.120 what level of court it gets to. 05:21.120 --> 05:26.240 So if the federal court ultimately rules mostly on Wisconsin law and based on Wisconsin statutes, 05:26.240 --> 05:28.280 then it wouldn't apply beyond the state. 05:28.280 --> 05:31.960 It would just sort of be persuasive to other courts like a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling 05:31.960 --> 05:33.600 would be as well. 05:33.600 --> 05:37.560 If the federal court were to rule on more of a blanket federal law issue, and particularly 05:37.560 --> 05:41.120 if that were to get appealed up to the Seventh Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court, then that 05:41.120 --> 05:43.400 could have broader national implications. 05:43.400 --> 05:46.280 Is that the ultimate goal for it to go all the way up? 05:46.280 --> 05:51.600 It's not clear that it is the merits briefing hasn't happened yet, either at the state level 05:51.600 --> 05:53.320 or at the federal court level. 05:53.320 --> 05:56.520 The federal court remanded based on a timing issue of the filing. 05:56.520 --> 06:00.920 And so we don't really have a good sense yet of how viable it would be for this to become 06:00.920 --> 06:03.280 really a major federal law case that goes all the way. 06:03.280 --> 06:04.280 All right. 06:04.280 --> 06:05.280 Well, we'll see what happens. 06:05.280 --> 06:06.440 Brynico Dar, thanks so much. 06:06.440 --> 06:07.440 Thank you. 06:07.440 --> 06:12.720 For more on this and other issues facing Wisconsin, visit our website at pbswisconsin.org and 06:12.720 --> 06:14.880 then click on the news tab. 06:14.880 --> 06:16.200 That's our program for tonight. 06:16.200 --> 06:17.920 I'm Frederica Freibert. 06:17.920 --> 06:18.520 Have a good weekend.