Liberal Justices Target Sheriffs—ICE Cooperation at Risk

A silver sheriff badge resting on a black leather surface

A liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court is edging toward a backdoor sanctuary policy by questioning whether sheriffs can even help ICE hold criminal suspects for deportation.

Story Highlights

Wisconsin’s liberal Supreme Court has taken the rare step of directly hearing a case that targets sheriffs who cooperate with federal ICE detainers.
The ACLU and Voces de la Frontera want to bar county jails from holding suspected immigration violators for ICE pickup, even for just 48 hours.
A ruling against the sheriffs could make large parts of Wisconsin function like a sanctuary state, limiting cooperation with federal law enforcement.
Conservatives warn this fight is about public safety, the rule of law, and whether activist courts can undercut federal immigration enforcement.

Liberal Court Takes Direct Aim at Sheriffs Who Work With ICE

Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, now controlled by a four-justice liberal bloc, has agreed to skip the normal process and directly hear a lawsuit attacking sheriffs who honor ICE detainer requests in county jails. The ACLU of Wisconsin, backed by the activist group Voces de la Frontera, filed the case as an “original action,” a rarely granted shortcut meant for matters of statewide importance. Conservative justices Annette Ziegler and Rebecca Bradley dissented, signaling deep concern over both the process and stakes.

The suit targets sheriffs in Walworth, Brown, Kenosha, Sauk, and Marathon counties, which together handle roughly a quarter of all ICE detainers in Wisconsin. These sheriffs routinely cooperate when ICE asks local jails to hold individuals up to 48 hours beyond their release time so federal agents can take custody. For many readers, that sounds like common-sense coordination between levels of government to keep potentially dangerous individuals from slipping back into communities.

How ICE Detainers Work and Why Activists Want Them Stopped

ICE detainers are federal requests, not mandates, asking local law enforcement to maintain custody of someone ICE suspects of immigration violations while agents arrange transfer. Activists now argue those detainers amount to new arrests that must meet Wisconsin’s standards for warrants and probable cause, even though federal immigration law operates under a separate framework. In past years, most Wisconsin sheriffs cooperated, seeing detainers as a vital tool to remove criminal aliens before they reoffend.

The ACLU and Voces de la Frontera have spent years campaigning against what they label a “jail-to-deportation pipeline,” focusing heavily on counties that contract with ICE or participate in federal-local partnerships. Their messaging emphasizes individuals with minor charges or no convictions, but the broader effect is to weaken the everyday ties between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. If the court sides with them, sheriffs across the state could be forced to stop honoring detainers altogether, no matter how serious the underlying case.

What This Means for Public Safety, Sovereignty, and the Rule of Law

Short term, the case could lead to injunctions that block the named sheriffs from cooperating with ICE detainers while litigation continues. That would mean more releases straight back into Wisconsin communities, leaving ICE to track people down on the street instead of receiving them securely from a jail. Longer term, a sweeping ruling would effectively push Wisconsin toward a sanctuary-style posture, where political and legal maneuvering blocks even willing sheriffs from working with federal agents.

For conservatives who care about sovereignty, borders, and law and order, the implications are obvious. When a state court casts doubt on whether local officers can help enforce federal immigration law, it erodes the cooperative federalism that has long underpinned public safety. Instead of backing sheriffs who are trying to protect their residents, the court is entertaining arguments that treat brief holds for ICE as suspect “illegal arrests” — even though federal law clearly authorizes civil immigration enforcement as a distinct process.

Trump’s America First Agenda vs. State-Level Resistance

All of this is unfolding against a very different national backdrop than just a few years ago. With President Trump back in the White House, the federal government has returned to an unapologetic America First immigration agenda: tightening the border, cracking down on cartels, and cutting off taxpayer benefits for illegal aliens. That national policy shift depends heavily on local partners, from county jails to state agencies, to make enforcement effective where people actually live.

When a state supreme court signals hostility to ICE cooperation, it does more than create legal headaches for a few sheriffs. It undercuts a core presidential mandate to restore order at the border and prioritize American citizens’ safety and resources. For Wisconsin families already frustrated by years of porous borders, crime concerns, and elite indifference, this case reads less like a technical legal dispute and more like another front in the broader struggle over who governs: elected leaders accountable to voters, or activist lawyers and judges pushing an open-borders vision from the bench.