Wisconsin’s highest court is set to decide whether it is legal for local jails to hold detainees at the request of federal immigration authorities.
The court currently has a 4–3 liberal majority. Four justices, who were not identified in the order, voted to accept the case. Conservative Justices Annette Ziegler and Rebecca Bradley dissented.
Justice Brian Hagedorn, who typically sides with the conservative wing, did not disclose how he voted. He wrote separately to explain the court’s review procedures and cautioned that the public should not assume a justice supports an order merely because he or she does not publicly dissent.
The dispute centers on immigration detainers, which are requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) asking local jails to hold individuals for up to 48 hours beyond the time when they would have otherwise been released. This extra time allows ICE agents to pick up individuals who are suspected of being in the country illegally and pursue deportation.
Wisconsin county sheriffs who choose to honor ICE detainers, the ACLU argued, are violating state law because holding a person beyond his or her release constitutes a “new arrest.” Under state law, they contend, any such arrest must be supported by a judicial warrant issued by a judge based on probable cause.
The lawsuit specifically names the sheriffs of Walworth, Kenosha, Brown, Marathon, and Sauk counties as defendants. According to the ACLU, these counties have carried out the highest number of ICE detainers in the state.
“There is no express prohibition in Wisconsin law on Wisconsin sheriffs complying with federal immigration detainers and administrative warrants upon expiration of the state-law bases for detention,” they wrote.
According to the defense, this program effectively means that detainees wanted by ICE are transferred into federal custody at the moment they would otherwise be released from state custody. As a result, they said, there is no unlawful extension of state detention or any “new arrest.”
Even for those counties lacking 287(g) partnership, the defense argued that when these sheriffs continue to detain someone in response to an ICE detainer, that person is simply “not yet in federal custody” rather than being subject to a new state arrest.
For now, the Supreme Court has directed both sides to submit briefs addressing key questions, including whether a sheriff’s participation in a 287(g) agreement has any effect on the legality of complying with ICE detainers. All briefs are due by Feb. 5, 2026.
The ACLU of Wisconsin welcomed the court’s move to take the case directly.
Samuel Hall, an attorney for the sheriffs, said the defense team is reviewing the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s order and evaluating their next steps in the litigation.
“We are confident, however, that Wisconsin sheriffs who honor ICE detainers do so fully within the bounds of Wisconsin law and the federal legal framework governing immigration enforcement,” Hall said in an emailed statement to The Epoch Times.
The measure never received a vote in the state Senate. But even if it were to clear the Republican-led upper chamber, it would likely be vetoed by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers.







