Sheriffs Handcuffed by Supreme Court

Handcuffs, officer badge, and firearm on textured surface.

A liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court is flirting with handcuffing sheriffs who cooperate with ICE, raising the stakes for border security far beyond one Midwestern state.

Story Snapshot

Wisconsin’s high court has taken the rare step of fast‑tracking a case that could effectively restrict sheriffs from honoring federal ICE detainers in county jails.
ACLU-backed activists argue ICE detainers are illegal “warrantless arrests,” while sheriffs say they are lawfully helping enforce national immigration law.
A ruling against sheriffs could create a de facto sanctuary policy, limiting cooperation with federal authorities and complicating Trump-era enforcement priorities.
The case highlights how liberal state courts can undercut federal immigration enforcement and public-safety-focused local officials.

How ACLU Activists Turned Routine ICE Cooperation Into A Statewide Court Battle

Wisconsin’s latest immigration flashpoint began when the ACLU of Wisconsin, representing activist group Voces de la Frontera, bypassed lower courts and went straight to the state Supreme Court. Their lawsuit targets sheriffs in five counties—Walworth, Brown, Kenosha, Sauk, and Marathon—for honoring federal ICE detainers that request holding certain inmates up to 48 hours past their scheduled release for immigration pickup. Activists claim these holds become new arrests under state law and therefore require a judge’s warrant, something standard ICE paperwork does not include.

The counties named in the suit are not random. They handle a large share of Wisconsin’s ICE detainers and, in some cases, maintain direct agreements with federal authorities, including 287(g)-style partnerships or contracts to house immigration detainees. That cooperation means more efficient transfers from local custody to federal custody when individuals are suspected of immigration violations. For conservatives who prioritize law and order, these sheriffs are doing exactly what voters expect: working with Washington, not against it, to remove people here illegally who land in local jails.

What ICE Detainers Really Are — And Why The Left Wants Them Stopped

Under federal regulations, ICE detainers are voluntary requests, not mandates, asking local jails to briefly hold individuals so immigration officers can take custody. Across the country, they have become a key tool for targeting people already arrested on other charges, rather than conducting broad sweeps in neighborhoods or workplaces. In Wisconsin, hundreds of detainers were issued in 2025, with more than a hundred immigration arrests tied to jail cooperation, demonstrating how central this mechanism is to interior enforcement.

ACLU lawyers and allied activists argue that because ICE detainers extend a person’s time behind bars, each detainer should be treated as a fresh arrest under state statutes requiring probable cause and judicial oversight. They highlight cases where individuals had minor charges or no convictions, claiming this exposes them to what they describe as “jail-to-deportation pipelines.” For them, shutting down detainer cooperation is part of a broader push to weaken federal immigration enforcement by attacking it at every local pressure point, especially in liberal-leaning states and cities.

Liberal Court Majority Tests The Limits Of State Power Over Federal Enforcement

The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision to accept this case as an original action signals how aggressively its liberal 4–3 majority is willing to shape statewide policy from the bench. Instead of letting local trial courts build a record over time, the justices granted direct review, prompting public dissents from conservative Justices Annette Ziegler and Rebecca Bradley. Their opposition underscores concern that the majority is using procedural shortcuts to fast-track a preferred political outcome on immigration and law enforcement.

For sheriffs and their attorney, the legal question is more straightforward. They argue that honoring detainers is permitted under both state and federal law and that local officials have clear authority to coordinate with federal agencies on custody transfers. If the court rules that these routine holds are unlawful, it could expose counties to litigation risk, pressure them to abandon cooperation, and encourage other liberal courts to follow suit. That kind of judicial activism would effectively override the Trump administration’s national enforcement priorities through state-level legal technicalities.

What’s At Stake For Public Safety, Rule Of Law, And National Immigration Policy

In the short term, any injunction or restrictive ruling could force sheriffs in the named counties to stop honoring detainers, making it harder for ICE to pick up inmates directly from secure facilities. Instead, individuals flagged for immigration violations could be released back into communities while federal agents scramble to locate them later, raising obvious public safety and resource concerns. For families who have already lived through surges in crime tied to lax border policies, this feels like another elite decision that ignores real-world consequences.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Seeks to Defy Federal ICE Detainers. There's Just One Problem
https://t.co/i9s4gKmaYx

— Townhall Updates (@TownhallUpdates) December 12, 2025

Long term, a ruling against the sheriffs would hand open-borders advocates a powerful new precedent: state courts can effectively convert entire regions into sanctuary-style jurisdictions without a single vote by the public or their legislators. That would undermine federal primacy on immigration, weaken cooperation between local law enforcement and ICE, and send a message that activist litigation can succeed where progressive ballots fail. For conservatives who believe in secure borders, the rule of law, and accountable government, this Wisconsin case is a warning shot that cannot be ignored.