The Wisconsin Supreme Court is poised to deliver a pivotal ruling that could reshape how local law enforcement agencies interact with federal immigration directives, specifically those issued by the Trump administration. At the heart of the matter is whether local law enforcement can legally detain individuals in their jails at the behest of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

This decision holds significant weight for the rights of immigrants, with advocacy groups asserting that these rights are compromised when sheriff’s offices adhere to ICE detainers. These detainers ask local jails to hold suspected undocumented immigrants for up to 48 hours, allowing federal agents to assume custody and initiate deportation proceedings.

The crux of the legal challenge, as outlined in a lawsuit, argues that complying with an ICE detainer effectively amounts to an arrest. The contention is that Wisconsin law enforcement lacks the legal authority to make arrests based solely on ICE’s civil administrative warrants, which do not carry the same weight as criminal warrants.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), representing an immigrant rights organization, successfully petitioned the state’s top court to directly hear their case. They urged the justices to bypass the lower courts, emphasizing the urgent need to address what they describe as illegal detentions occurring statewide, allowing ICE time to take detainees into custody.

In a significant move, the Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted the ACLU’s petition, stating, “The petition for leave to commence an original action is granted.” The court took full jurisdiction over the case, noting that only issues outlined in the initial petition would be considered unless directed otherwise by the court. This ruling sets the stage for a major legal confrontation with far-reaching implications for immigration enforcement practices within the state.

The petition from the ACLU and Voces de la Frontera said at the time of the lawsuit in September that “ICE sends detainers even for people with no criminal records or people who still have charges pending in Wisconsin courts.” They listed five state sheriff’s offices as respondents — from the counties of Walworth, Brown, Kenosha, Sauk, and Marathon — and noted that they have complied with ICE’s requests.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered Voces de la Frontera to submit a brief within 30 days, and then the sheriff’s offices will have 20 days to respond.

The seven justices were split on whether to expedite the case. A majority is required for the state’s high court to bypass the lower courts to take a case and two justices indicated they were opposed to the decision.

The disagreement underscores the significance of the makeup of The Badger State’s high court. In the lead-up to Wisconsin’s last two state Supreme Court elections — both of which the liberal candidate won — national Democrats and Republicans funneled money into their respective candidate, recognizing how important a majority would be.

The distinction between acquiescence and opposition to ICE and the Trump administration’s immigration priorities has been a defining characteristic of many local leaders and officials. It is perhaps most notable in so-called “purple” states such as Wisconsin.

The ACLU celebrated the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case.

“ICE continues to send hundreds of these detainers to Wisconsin jails, and people throughout the state are being illegally held for days so that ICE can pick them up,” said Tim Muth, ACLU of Wisconsin senior staff attorney. “ICE sends detainers even for people who have never been convicted and only have minor charges pending in Wisconsin courts. Sheriffs are overstepping their authority under Wisconsin law by honoring ICE detainers.”

Law&Crime reached out to ICE for comment.