Fearful Supervisors Call For Courthouse ICE Policy

Milwaukee County Courthouse. Photo by Graham Kilmer.

Milwaukee County supervisors are seeking answers and policy options after federal immigration agents arrested immigrants inside the Milwaukee County Courthouse.

The arrests occurred in March and April, according to the Milwaukee County Sheriff‘s Office (MCSO), which provides security for the building and circuit court operations. Agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) entered the courthouse in plain clothes, with no identifying markings, according to MCSO Chief Deputy Brian Barkow. The individuals arrested were there participating in the judicial process as defendants charged, but not convicted, of crimes.

The actions drew a strong rebuke from local elected officials, attorneys and civic leaders, who say the arrests robbed the individuals of their right to due process under the U.S. constitution and that the arrests will have a chilling effect on immigrant participation in the local judicial process.

Supervisors on the county board’s Committee on Judiciary, Law Enforcement and General Services voted to adopt a resolution that registers opposition to any unlawful acts committed by ICE at the courthouse; requests that the county executive, Office of Corporation Counsel, Sheriff and Chief Judge work together to “ensure access to services and safeguard every individual’s constitutional right to due process;” and supports efforts to educate residents about their rights.

Milwaukee County Corporation Counsel Scott Brown told supervisors his office is already exploring all legally available policy options for the county and working with the officials named in the resolution.

“We are working on compiling as much information as possible in conjunction with putting together a policy and a plan to deal with future incidents,” Brown said. 

Milwaukee County Board Chairwoman Marcelia Nicholson, who sponsored the board resolution, echoed concerns about the chilling effect the ICE arrests will have on judicial participation, which includes immigrants interacting with the justice system to testify as victims or witnesses of a crime, or to assert their rights in civil matters, like eviction.

“[The Courthouse] should be a place where people come to learn about their rights, access justice and feel safe doing so,” Nicholson said. “Some may ask, why should the county act on what appears to be a federal issue? The answer is simple: because we are the stewards of this place.”

The committee voted to advance the resolution to the county board for adoption. However, the chilling effect and fear so many have referenced since the arrests has also spread to democratically elected officials sitting on the county board.

Sup. Patti Logsdon, one of the most conservative members of the county board, abstained from exercising her authority and voting on the resolution, citing fear of personal legal consequences, including criminal charges.

Despite assurances from Attorney Brown that she would be within her legal right to vote on the resolution, barring “a massive change in our federal government and our laws, which may be coming someday,” Logsdon abstained.

“My abstention is not a reflection of indifference or opposition to the values of justice or fairness. Rather, it’s a reflection of a legal uncertainty surrounding the passing and implications of this resolution,” Logsdon said. “Before I can good in good conscience cast a vote, I believe several important legal questions need to be addressed.”

Logsdon said she is worried about “personal legal liability” and “potential legal exposure for elected officials who support policies that may be percieved as conflicting with federal immigration law.”

“I could face criminal charges,” she said. “I want to be sure no actions required by this resolution will put myself or any of my fellow county officials in legal jeopardy.”

There is no legal basis for Logsdon’s concern, and the idea supervisors would face personal legal liability for voting on the resolution is “preposterous,” Brown said.

“In the United States of America as it exists today, and I hope it continues to exist, public officials standing up for due process and defending the Constitution are not going to be facing public liability,” Brown said. “They will not be jailed. We’re not in fascism, yet.”

And if supervisors are sued: “My office stands ready to defend you,” Brown said.

The idea that the U.S. is slipping into authoritarian rule came up more than once at the meeting Tuesday. Said Sup. Juan Miguel Martinez: “T​​his administration really is descending into 1939 Nazi Germany, and I’m not saying that with hyperbole.”

Martinez pointed to President Donald Trump‘s policy of mass deportations and legal U.S. residents being stripped of their residencies. “And every single day it descends more and more into madness.”

Sup. Justin Bielinski asked his colleagues to reflect on the “gravity of the situation” facing them now. “We have, for the first time, the president who is willing to break the law openly and defy court orders to achieve an established objective,” he said, “and we can’t be any part involved in facilitating that.”

In the south, under Jim Crow, Black citizens could not testify against white citizens, which meant they could be victimized without recourse to justice, Bielinski said.

“So if immigrants are not feeling comfortable coming to court to testify in a trial, then we’re essentially going back to that old situation where crime is okay so long as your victim is someone who is of this other status,” he said. “And we just can’t allow that to continue in the United States of America.”

Amanda Merkwae, representing the ACLU of Wisconsin, testified before the committee, offering data to back up Bielinski’s concerns. ACLU studies have found that chilling immigrant participation in the justice system made it harder to prosecute cases involving “domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking and child abuse,” when the victims were immigrants.

Sup. Caroline Gómez-Tom noted that people come to the courthouse not only for the judicial system, but other services, including child support, victim services and for important legal documents.

“I want to add that it is our responsibility to serve our community and all inhabitants of our county,” Gómez-Tom said. “And it is actually in state statute, the word ‘inhabitants,’ which means all folks who reside within Milwaukee County.”

Legislation Link - Urban Milwaukee members see direct links to legislation mentioned in this article. Join today