SCOW accepts original action petition to determine power of sheriffs to enforce immigration laws
Voces de la Frontera, Inc. v. Gerber, 2025AP2121, petition for original action granted 12/3/25; case activity
In yet another case involving a hot-button issue sure to garner lots of press and national attention, SCOW agrees to review under what circumstances local sheriffs may participate in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.
According to the order, this case presents the following issues:
1. Does WIS. STAT. ch. 818 govern the authority of a sheriff to make a civil arrest only in civil actions pending in Wisconsin courts, or do these provisions additionally circumscribe a sheriff’s authority to make a civil arrest pursuant to a federal immigration detainer; and
2. What impact, if any, does a sheriff’s entry into a formal agreement with the federal government pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(1)—commonly referred to as a “287(g) agreement”—have on the issue stated in the “Issue Presented” section of the original action petition, paying particular attention to the statutory phrase “consistent with State and local law” in 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(1); and
3. What impact, if any, does the fact that a sheriff’s department participates in immigration enforcement pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(10), without a 287(g) agreement, have on the issue stated in the “Issue Presented” section of the original action petition.
The petition filed by Voces de la Frontera makes clear that, despite all the statutory legalese appearing in the court’s order, the issue presented is relatively straightforward, and asks whether and to what extent Wisconsin law enforcement officers may assist the federal government in enforcing immigration laws. Obviously, this is a timely issue that has stoked tremendous debate in Wisconsin and in other states. Interestingly, the order granting the petition came with 2 dissents as well as a separate statement from Justice Hagedorn asking his fellow justices to respect the norm of not dissenting from orders granting review in order to avoid generating accusations of impartiality down the road.