Wisconsin sheriffs split on ICE immigration policies

Listen to this article

In northern Wisconsin’s Rusk County, known for its winding trails through the forested Blue Hills, Sheriff Phillip Grassmann’s deputies are no longer supposed to notify U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement when booking immigrants into jail.

Close to the Illinois border, Walworth County Sheriff Dave Gerber signed onto a formal partnership with ICE to hold undocumented immigrants in jail past their release date, though he says that’s how they’ve always operated.

And in Milwaukee County, Sheriff Denita Ball has added to her office’s immigration policy to make it explicit that deputies will not detain people for ICE unless agents produce a warrant signed by a judge.

These three agencies are among many Wisconsin sheriff’s offices that updated or created immigration policies within the last year.

For the second year in a row, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Green Bay Press-Gazette surveyed all 72 Wisconsin sheriffs about their cooperation with ICE.

The results show that many sheriff’s departments have tightened their rules for working with federal immigration authorities since the start of President Donald Trump’s crackdown in January 2025.

Most did so when they adopted a standard immigration policy created in 2020 by Lexipol, a Texas company that designs policies for law enforcement agencies across the country.

However, others have gone in the opposite direction. Since the start of last year, the number of Wisconsin sheriffs that have signed formal agreements with ICE has nearly tripled, bringing the total number now to 20.

Many sheriffs’ departments said the agreements merely codify longstanding practices.

“Nothing the Sheriff’s Office is doing has changed in over 20 years,” Outagamie County Sheriff’s Office Capt. Nathan Borman said in an email. “Immigration enforcement is not part of our daily duties, nor do we want it to be.”

However, it is likely that Wisconsin sheriffs will be asked to play a bigger role in the Trump administration’s next chapter of immigration enforcement.

In his March confirmation hearing, new U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin told Congress he would like to see ICE be more of “a transport” from local jails, rather than “the front line” of enforcement.

That would be a shift from the far more public, forceful approach ICE took in its operations in Chicago, Minneapolis and other cities.

In a statement to the Journal Sentinel, ICE echoed the importance of local law enforcement cooperation.

“ICE has supercharged efforts with state and local law enforcement to assist federal immigration officers in our efforts to make America safe again,” a spokesperson said.

Of the 68 sheriffs who shared their immigration enforcement policies or responded to survey questions:

• The majority said they do not honor immigration detainers, although some departments had inconsistent answers. Detainers are requests from ICE for sheriffs to hold people in jail past their release dates so immigration officers can pick them up.
• At least 14 departments signed formal agreements with ICE since the start of last year. One-third of Wisconsin sheriffs now have some kind of contract with ICE.
• Six counties permitted deputies to detain people they have “reasonable suspicion” of entering the country illegally. That same policy language prompted a federal lawsuit over racial profiling in Washington state eight years ago.
• On the other hand, Milwaukee and Adams counties added language in their policies prohibiting deputies from detaining anyone unless ICE produces a warrant signed by a judge.

Generally, policies and responses varied. Although most sheriffs added immigration enforcement policies since last year, many remain without one. Other sheriffs never responded to the survey.

In addition, policy and practice frequently seemed to clash. Many sheriffs gave answers that conflicted. For example, eight counties that signed formal agreements with ICE to honor detainers either said in the survey or in their written policies that they would not.

On the question of whether they would alert ICE about encountering undocumented immigrants when arresting or booking them into jail, multiple sheriffs said that decision is out of their hands. Once an individual is fingerprinted, that person’s information is automatically uploaded to a national database that is accessible by ICE and other federal agencies, they said.

“What they choose to do from there is up to them,” Dane County Sheriff’s Department spokesperson Elise Shaffer said.

Four sheriffs with policies that say deputies “generally” should not notify ICE about undocumented people they encounter still said in the survey that they would alert ICE in certain instances.

Even if a law enforcement agency has a policy saying that contacting them will not automatically lead to an immigration inquiry, Milwaukee-based immigration attorney Gabriela Parra said she can’t promise her clients that the agency won’t share their information.

According to Parra, Trump’s crackdown has created a rift between immigrants and local law enforcement, which has tried to encourage immigrants to report crimes and cooperate in investigations.

“Unfortunately, that’s really being jeopardized,” Parra said. “I’ve seen a shift among my clients.”

One of the most common ways that ICE asks for local law enforcement cooperation is by asking local jails to hold people until immigration officers can pick them up – also known as a detainer request.

The use of detainers has risen sharply in recent years. In 2025, ICE made 579 arrests using detainers in Wisconsin, according to figures from the Deportation Data Project, compared to just 49 in 2022.

However, the legality of detainers has long been a point of contention.

Forty-eight sheriffs told the Journal Sentinel they do not honor ICE detainers, including those in Milwaukee and Dane counties. Another seven gave conflicting answers.

Many of these departments are using a default policy created by the private company Lexipol. Their policy states that deputies should not honor ICE detainers for civil immigration violations. The company made that change in 2020 in response to scrutiny and litigation around detainers.

The sheriffs of both Jefferson and Grant counties also said they were advised not to honor detainers by legal counsel.

The issue is now in federal court. The ACLU of Wisconsin is suing five local sheriffs on behalf of the immigrant advocacy group Voces de la Frontera, arguing that detainers are illegal because state law prohibits deputies from making civil immigration arrests.

“You can’t just sign a contract and suddenly get the right to make an arrest that the Wisconsin Legislature has never given you that right to before,” said ACLU of Wisconsin senior staff attorney Timothy Muth.

The five counties involved — Brown, Kenosha, Sauk, Walworth and Marathon — all signed formal agreements with ICE promising to honor detainers. None responded to requests for comment.

Muth said holding people past their release date denies them their civil liberties. Unlike those in prison, most people in jail have not been convicted of crimes.

“It’s two days being held in a jail cell,” Muth said. “It is two days of being separated from your family, two days of not being able to return to a job.”

He said ICE is arresting more people directly from local jails because it is focusing more on people who are still awaiting trial or serving sentences for minor offenses, rather than those convicted of serious crimes.

In court filings, U.S. Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate has argued that immigration detainers are legitimate under federal law and that ignoring them endangers Wisconsin residents.

“Crucial law-enforcement, public-safety, and rule-of-law interests will be undermined by the relief that Petitioner seeks,” Schumate wrote.

Even though most sheriffs are backing away from detainers, many others are signing formal agreements to welcome them.

Fourteen Wisconsin sheriffs have signed onto a program, commonly referred to as 287(g), that gives their deputies the power to perform certain functions on behalf of ICE. Of the 20 sheriffs with such agreements, the vast majority signed up for the version that authorizes jail staff to execute detainers.

Several sheriffs said signing on was a formality.

“We have been honoring ICE detainers back through multiple presidents,” Washington County Sheriff Martin Schulteis said in a statement. “[The agreement] gives us the legal authority to honor ICE detainers while simultaneously protecting taxpayers from any potential liability.”

Others, like Dunn County Sheriff Kevin Bygd, said they joined to stay in the federal government’s good books.

Bygd cited the example of former Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan, who was convicted on felony obstruction charges last year for steering an undocumented defendant away from immigration agents.

“The flip side to not honoring an ICE detainer, my staff could be charged obstructing federal law enforcement,” Bygd said. “We run a risk of not being eligible for federal funding and grants when they come along.”

Although agencies get reimbursed for the training costs of a 287(g) agreement, Bygd said the money is not enough to cover the expenses needed to enforce it.

Nationwide, 94% of local law enforcement agencies with 287(g) agreements signed up during Trump’s second term.

In addition, since the start of Trump’s second term, at least six sheriff’s departments have joined a program to have the federal government reimburse the cost of incarcerating certain undocumented immigrants in their jails. The program is known as the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program.

A few Wisconsin sheriffs say they have no formal immigration policy and don’t care to make one.

Sawyer County Sheriff Doug Mrotek said he always checks the immigration status of anyone his deputies arrest, always reports undocumented immigrants to ICE, and will work with the agency when asked. His department has no written immigration policy.

“We’re not dealing with it any more or less than we have for years,” Mrotek said. “I think the media has made more of an issue and surfaced to the public.”

Muth, of the ACLU, said more attention should be paid to sheriff’s departments that cooperate with ICE without formal agreements or policies.

“That’s a harmful practice, but it is hard to track down and isolate,” he said.

In Price County, home to the state’s smallest jail, Sheriff Brian Schmidt said he doesn’t have many policies because he trusts the officers he hires will use proper judgment. In a county of just 14,000 residents, immigration issues don’t come up much, Schmidt said.

Even so, on that very day in February, Schmidt said he was holding someone in his jail on an ICE detainer related to a warrant out of Minnesota. He said he also once alerted ICE about a man from Ukraine in his jail who appeared to be in the country illegally.

Schmidt described other examples of pulling over people from Mexico, South Africa and Nicaragua. In all three instances, he said he let the drivers go without checking their immigration status.

His department has no written immigration enforcement policy. Schmidt said he treats people the same regardless of their citizenship.

“Am I going to contact ICE?” Schmidt asked. “I may, I may not.”