A small memorial of flowers and an American flag outside the Farragut West Metro station in Washington, D.C., near where two members of the West Virginia National Guard were shot on Nov. 26. (Photo by Andrew Leyden/Getty Images)

The United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia announced Friday it has charged the man who allegedly shot two National Guard members earlier this week with first-degree murder after one of the soldiers died as a result of her injuries. 

Other charges include three counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence and two counts of assault with intent to kill while armed. 

The attack shocked the country and has led to a renewed discussion about immigration policy as well as the war in Afghanistan and how the country withdrew during the Biden administration. 

President Donald Trump announced late Thursday night he intends to “permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries,” though he didn’t specify which countries would be included or exactly how such an order would be implemented. 

Trump wrote on social media he plans to “remove anyone who is not a net asset to the United States, or is incapable of loving our Country, end all Federal benefits and subsidies to noncitizens of our Country, denaturalize migrants who undermine domestic tranquility, and deport any Foreign National who is a public charge, security risk, or non-compatible with Western Civilization.”

The post came just hours after U.S. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, died from injuries she sustained during a Wednesday shooting a couple of blocks from the White House. The other victim, U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, remained hospitalized in critical condition. Both were West Virginia National Guard members.

The alleged shooter, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, 29, an Afghan national who worked with United States forces, entered the country on Sept. 8, 2021, as part of Operation Allies Welcome, according to a statement from Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

No details of immigration proposals

The White House press office declined to say Friday which countries would have their residents barred from entering the United States under the new order, referring back to the president’s social media posts, which did not include a list.

“Only REVERSE MIGRATION can fully cure this situation,” Trump wrote. “Other than that, HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL, except those that hate, steal, murder, and destroy everything that America stands for — You won’t be here for long!”

Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a Thursday afternoon statement the administration would pause immigration applications for Afghan nationals.

“Effective immediately, processing of all immigration requests relating to Afghan nationals is stopped indefinitely pending further review of security and vetting protocols,” she wrote. 

The Trump administration will also review “all asylum cases approved under the Biden Administration,” McLaughlin said, saying those cases required more vetting. 

Biden Afghanistan policy blamed

In a separate post, Trump blamed former President Joe Biden for allowing the alleged shooter into the country. 

McLaughlin echoed that sentiment.

Lakanwal “was paroled in by the Biden Administration. After that, Biden signed into law that parole program, and then entered into the 2023 Ahmed Court Settlement, which bound (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) to adjudicate his asylum claim on an expedited basis. Regardless if his asylum was granted or not, this monster would not have been removed because of his parole.” 

The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, following two decades of war that began as a result of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, has been widely criticized.

Many of the Afghan nationals who aided the United States and allied countries were left behind as the Taliban quickly regained control. 

The nonprofit #AfghanEvac, formed in August 2021 to help resettle Afghan refugees, criticized the administration’s proposal to indefinitely halt the processing of immigration requests from Afghans.  

“Our allies are under attack today because of the actions of one deranged man. Those actions should not be ascribed to an entire community,” the organization posted on social media late Thursday.

In a lengthier statement issued Wednesday following the shooting of two National Guard members, the organization’s president, Shawn VanDiver, said #AfghanEvac “expects and fully supports the perpetrator facing full accountability and prosecution under the law.”

VanDiver continued: “AfghanEvac rejects any attempt to leverage this tragedy as a political ploy to isolate or harm Afghans who have resettled in the United States.”

Motive unknown

Lakanwal had been residing in Washington state and drove across the country before the shooting, according to Jeanine Pirro, U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.

Officials investigating the shooting have yet to release a possible motive.

Lakanwal was granted asylum in the U.S. in April, according to reporting by many media outlets, including NPR.

The Department of Homeland Security did not confirm for States Newsroom the date Lakanwal was granted asylum.

A California Highway Patrol officer holds an evidence bag after taking a suspect into custody during a stop in Oakland, Calif. Many factors can influence a police agency’s clearance rate, including how quickly evidence is processed by crime labs. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Police departments’ “clearance rates” — the percentage of cases they declare closed — are one of the most widely cited benchmarks for how effectively they combat crime. Lawmakers reference clearance rates in hearings, mayors cite them during police budget debates, and community members often use them to judge how well their local department is functioning.

But the figures can be confusing — and in some cases misleading.

State lawmakers are pushing to better understand and improve clearance rates, as crime remains top of mind for many Americans and a defining issue in statehouses nationwide.

Efforts to help solve more crimes and support victims have become a rare area of bipartisan agreement. This year, lawmakers in Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania and Texas have considered or enacted measures that would boost police investigative capacity or improve crime data and clearance rate reporting.

A new law in Illinois will require all law enforcement agencies to publish routine clearance data on nonfatal shootings and homicides starting in July 2026.

Missouri enacted a similar law, which will go into effect in 2026, that directs the state’s Department of Public Safety to publish clearance rates statewide and create a new grant program to help police departments solve violent crimes. And Texas lawmakers established a pilot program to set up rapid DNA testing facilities in two counties.

Lawmakers and police officials in some of these states say raising clearance rates is both a public safety priority and a matter of providing closure for victims and families. Research suggests that the likelihood of being caught is one of the strongest deterrents to committing a crime — making clearance rates a closely watched indicator of how well the justice system is working.

Clearing crimes is critical for public safety because it takes repeat offenders off the streets, helps resolve cases that never made it into official reports, delivers justice for victims, and strengthens the community trust that helps police solve future cases, said Thaddeus Johnson, an assistant professor of criminal justice and criminology at Georgia State University. Johnson, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan think tank Council on Criminal Justice, also served as a police officer in Memphis, Tennessee, for a decade.

“Clearance rate reflects police actions, but also the vibe and how the community feels –– the confidence and faith they have in the police,” Johnson said.

Across the country, clearance rates for violent crimes — including homicide, rape and aggravated assault — have declined for decades. The national homicide clearance rate, for example, has fallen from 72% in 1980 to 61% in 2024, the most recent year with FBI data available.

The decline is similar across other major crime categories. In 1980, police cleared 49% of rapes and 59% of aggravated assaults. By 2024, those figures had fallen to 27% and 49%, respectively. Robbery clearance rates also shifted over time, rising from 24% in 1980 to 30% in 2024.

But those figures reflect national averages. At the local level, clearance rates vary widely, with some departments solving a large share of cases while others struggle with consistently low numbers.

Police departments in Vermont, Delaware and Idaho had the highest violent crime clearance rates in 2024, while New Mexico, Georgia and Mississippi had the lowest, according to a 50-state crime data analysis by the nonpartisan, nonprofit Council of State Governments Justice Center.

Some experts say there are several reasons clearance rates can swing in either direction. Chronic staffing shortages, overwhelmed detective units, rising caseloads and strained community relationships can push rates down. Strong victim and witness cooperation, better investigative technology and clearance of older backlogged cases can push them up.

At the same time, clearance rates — like most crime statistics — have limitations and can be difficult to understand.

Clearance rates, explained

A clearance rate is meant to show how often police solve reported crimes in a given year. The formula is simple — cleared cases divided by reported cases — but the definition of “cleared” is broad.

Under federal rules, cases can be cleared either by arrest or by “exceptional means.” Arrest clearances are straightforward: Police make an arrest, file charges and hand the case to prosecutors.

Exceptional clearances apply when police say they have enough evidence to arrest someone but cannot do so for reasons outside their control — for example, when a suspect has died, fled the country, is being held in another jurisdiction that won’t extradite, or when prosecutors decline to bring charges or victims choose not to move forward.

Since agencies have wide discretion in using exceptional clearances, similar cases may be counted as “solved” in one community and remain open in another. High exceptional clearance rates can give the impression that more arrests have been made than actually have.

Timing also complicates the statistics. Clearances are counted in the year a case is closed, not the year the crime occurred. For crimes that routinely take months or years to investigate, such as homicides or sexual assaults, this is common.

As a result, departments that focus on long-term investigations or suddenly receive new evidence may clear a batch of older cases, making their current-year rate look higher even though more recent cases remain unresolved.

Most agencies do not publicly break down how many of their annual clearances involve older cases, but that doesn’t mean they are intentionally manipulating their statistics.

National reporting isn’t airtight either. The FBI’s crime reporting program is voluntary, and some police departments may submit crime data but skip clearance data altogether.

Other measures of effectiveness

A clearance does not guarantee that prosecutors filed charges or that a case resulted in a conviction — outcomes that often matter most to victims and their families. It also doesn’t capture whether the right person was apprehended.

“It’s an imperfect metric for the performance of our criminal justice system,” said Marc Krupanski, the criminal justice policy director at Arnold Ventures, a philanthropic research organization.

Clearance rates also say little about investigative quality, how consistently police update families, how quickly officers respond or whether residents feel comfortable coming forward with information in the first place.

For these reasons, experts recommend looking at other measures, including prosecutorial outcomes, police response times, victim satisfaction and levels of community trust.

Some experts say clearance rates are most meaningful when analyzed over time — ideally 10 to 20 years — and adjusted per capita or per 100,000 residents. Breaking out clearances by arrest and exceptional means also adds important context, as does examining how many arrests lead to charges or convictions.

These outcomes, experts say, reflect both police work and community cooperation — from gathering witnesses to processing crime scenes and maintaining evidence — offering a clearer picture of investigative effectiveness.

Michigan’s proposal

Just last month, Michigan lawmakers introduced bipartisan legislation aimed at boosting the state’s clearance rates. Last year, Michigan police solved 48% of violent crimes, according to the Council of State Governments Justice Center’s analysis.

The House and Senate versions of the Violent Crime Clearance Act are sponsored by Republican state Rep. Sarah Lightner and Democratic state Sen. Stephanie Chang. The legislation would create a statewide grant program for police departments, allowing them to use the funds to hire and train investigators or crime lab personnel, upgrade evidence-collection equipment or record-management systems and support witnesses in violent crime investigations. It would also establish strict clearance rate reporting requirements.

“Regardless of where you sit on the political spectrum, I think there’s just a general belief that we want crimes to be solved,” Chang told Stateline.

Rural police departments, which often have fewer staff and limited investigative resources, sometimes face challenges in solving certain types of cases. To help address this, the bill would require that grants be distributed across the state, and that no single agency receive more than 20% of the total program funding in a given year.

Supporters, including Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard, say the legislation would provide much-needed help for overburdened departments.

“These aren’t just statistics. These are people. … They were dragged into the criminal justice system as a victim, and so for us, each case — and trying to find and bring closure, whether it’s an armed robbery, a rape or a murder — is critically important,” Bouchard said.

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at ahernandez@stateline.org.

Former FBI Director James Comey testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on June 8, 2017 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

A senior federal judge dismissed charges Monday against two public officials with long-running public disputes with President Donald Trump, saying the controversial appointment of the president’s former personal attorney as a prosecutor doomed the cases.

Senior U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, whom former President Bill Clinton appointed to the bench in South Carolina, wrote in a Monday order that Attorney General Pam Bondi did not have the authority to make Lindsey Halligan the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. 

The judge said the deadline for an interim appointee to that position had lapsed.

Because that process was invalid, the prosecutions against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, both of whom had investigated or prosecuted Trump, must be dropped, Currie wrote.

Currie dismissed the indictments without prejudice, meaning they could be revived. But at least in Comey’s case, in which charges were brought on the eve of the statute of limitations expiring, that appeared unlikely.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Monday the administration would appeal the ruling.

“Lindsay Halligan was legally appointed, and that’s the administration’s position,” Leavitt said. “There was a judge who was clearly trying to shield Leticia James and James Comey from receiving accountability.”

120-day clock

U.S. attorneys are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but the attorney general can appoint someone on an interim basis for 120 days. After that, the judges in the district are responsible for appointing an interim prosecutor.

“Ms. Halligan was not appointed in a manner consistent with this framework,” Currie wrote.

Bondi appointed Erik Siebert as the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia in January, while his confirmation was pending in the Senate. After 120 days, the judges in the district allowed him to continue.

Siebert resigned in September, reportedly under pressure from Trump and Bondi to bring charges against Comey. Bondi then named Halligan, at the time a White House aide who had also worked for Trump in a private capacity, as the interim U.S. attorney. 

But Bondi could not do that because, after 120 days, the responsibility for naming an interim U.S. attorney fell to the district court judges, Currie wrote.

“The 120-day clock began running with Mr. Siebert’s appointment on Jan. 21, 2025,” she wrote. “When that clock expired on May 21, 2025, so too did the Attorney General’s appointment authority. Consequently, I conclude that the Attorney General’s attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid and that Ms. Halligan has been unlawfully serving in that role.”

Quick indictment

Halligan, after gaining office in September, quickly secured a two-count indictment against the former FBI chief from a grand jury in Alexandria. Comey was accused of lying to Congress about whether he had authorized a press leak of information related to an FBI investigation of Russian actors’ involvement in Trump’s first presidential campaign. 

However, U.S. District Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick wrote last week that issues with evidence, testimony and statements to the grand jury in the case outweighed the usual heavily guarded secrecy of proceedings. He said “profound investigative missteps” could result in the dismissal of Comey’s indictment.

Comey has pleaded not guilty.

James won a civil case against Trump related to business fraud, though a state appeals court later overturned the sentence as overly punitive.

Trump has publicly blasted James and Comey as using the mechanisms of legal proceedings to persecute him. 

In an extraordinary public message to Bondi just before Halligan replaced Siebert, Trump complained that the prosecutions against both were not developing faster.

The Justice Department did not respond to a message seeking comment Monday.

The Waukesha County Sheriff Department. An audit of the department's use of data from the Flock surveillance camera system shows inconsistent reporting the reasons on the reasons investigators access the information, a problem common among police agencies. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Like other Wisconsin law enforcement agencies, the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department (WCSD) uses Flock cameras for many reasons, though department personnel don’t always clearly document what those reasons are. Audit data reveals that staff most frequently entered “investigation” in order to access Flock’s network, while other documented uses are raising concerns among privacy advocates. 

Flock cameras perpetually photograph and, using AI-powered license plate reader technology, identify vehicles traversing roadways. Flock’s system can be used to view a vehicle’s journey, even weeks after capturing an image, or flag specific vehicles for law enforcement which have been placed on “Be On The Lookout” (BOLO) lists.

As of March 2025, the company Flock Safety was valued at $7.5 billion, with over 5,000 law enforcement agencies using its cameras nationwide. At least  221 of those agencies are in Wisconsin, including the city of Waukesha’s police department as well as  the county sheriff . The Wisconsin Examiner obtained Flock audit data from the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department through open records requests, covering Flock searches from January 2024 to July 2025, and used computer programming to analyze the data.

Over that period of time, more than 6,700 Flock searches were conducted by WCSD using only “investigation”, as well as abbreviations or misspellings of the word. The searches, as they appeared in the audit data, offered no other context to suggest why specifically Flock’s network had been searched. Lt. Nicholas Wenzel, a sheriff’s department spokesperson, wrote in an email statement that “investigation” has a broad usage when Flock is involved. 

“A deputy/detective using Flock for an investigation is using it for a wide range of public safety situations,” Wenzel explained. “Flock assists in locating missing persons during Amber or Silver Alert by identifying their vehicles and has proven effective in recovering stolen cars. Investigators use Flock to track suspect vehicles in serious crimes such as homicides, assaults, robberies, and shootings, as well as in property crimes like burglaries, catalytic converter thefts, and package thefts. The system also supports traffic-related investigations, including hit-and-run cases, and enables agencies to share information across jurisdictions to track offenders who travel between communities.”

Widespread use of vague search terms 

Dave Maass, director of investigations at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that terms like “investigation” are too vague to determine whether or not Flock was used appropriately.  At least some responsibility falls on Flock Safety itself, Maass argues. “They’re setting up a system where it’s impossible for somebody to audit it,” he told the Wisconsin Examiner. “And I think that’s the big problem, is that there’s no baseline requirement that you have to have a case related to this…They say you have to have a law enforcement purpose. But if you just put the word ‘investigation’ there, how do you know? Like, how do you know that this is not somebody stalking their ex-partner? How do you know whether this is somebody looking up information about celebrities? How do you know whether it’s racist or not? And you just don’t, because nobody is checking any of these things.”

The audit also stored other vague search terms used by WCSD such as “f”, “cooch”, “freddy”, “ts”, “nathan”, and “hunt” which Lt. Wenzel would not define.“The search terms are associated with investigations, some of which remain active,” he wrote in an email statement. “To preserve the integrity of these ongoing investigations, no further description or clarification of the terms can be provided at this time.” 

In August, Wisconsin Examiner published a similar Flock analysis that also found agencies statewide entering only the word “investigation,” with no other descriptor, in order to access Flock. At nearly 20,000 searches (not including misspellings and abbreviations), the term “investigation” was in fact the most often used term in that analysis, which relied on audit data obtained from the Wauwatosa Police Department. 

While data from the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department appeared in that first Flock story, that analysis focused on broad trends which appeared among at least 221 unique agencies using Flock in Wisconsin. This more recent analysis focuses specifically on the Waukesha County Sheriff Department’s use of the camera network. 

The August report found that the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department appeared among the top 10 Wisconsin law enforcement agencies that used Flock the most. The report also found that some agencies also only entered “.” — a period — in the Flock system field to indicate the reason for using the system. The West Allis Police Department led Wisconsin in this particular search term, followed by the Waukesha Police Department and the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office. 

In response to an inquiry from the Wisconsin Examiner, a Waukesha Police Department spokesperson  said that an officer who’d conducted nearly 400 Flock searches using only “.” as the reason had been provided extra training, and that the officer’s behavior had been corrected after the Wisconsin Examiner reached out. The West Allis Police Department,  on the other hand, did not suggest that its officers were using the Flock network improperly. 

Use of vague search terms is chronic across Flock’s network, Maass has found. He recalled  one nationwide audit that covered 11.4 million Flock searches over a six-month period. Of those some 22,743 “just dots” appeared as reasons for Flock searches. Searches using only the word “investigation” made up about 14.5% of all searches, he said. 

“So yeah, that’s a problem,” Maass told the Wisconsin Examiner. Reviewing a copy of Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department audit data, Maass saw the same vague search terms that have been reported by the Examiner. Although some terms can be reasonably guessed — such as “repo” perhaps meaning repossession, or ICAC, which usually stands for Internet Crimes Against Children — others aren’t so easy. 

“‘Hunt’ can mean anything,” said Maass, referring to a term which appeared 24 times within the Waukesha Sheriff’s data. Maass points to the search term “f”, which the Wisconsin Examiner’s analysis found WCSD used to search Flock 806 times. 

Maass highlights that each search touches hundreds or even thousands of individual Flock networks nationwide. “If I’m one of these agencies that gets hit by this system, how am I to know if this is a legitimate search or not?” Maass said. “Now, maybe somebody at Waukesha is going through their own system, and like questioning every officer about every case. Maybe they’re doing that. Probably not.” 

Wenzel of the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department said that although some searches appear vague,  deputies and detectives are required by department policy to document their use of Flock in reports. Although a case number category does appear in the audit data, this column was rendered blank, making it impossible for Wisconsin Examiner to determine how often Flock searches had case numbers, or whether those case numbers corresponded with specific investigations the sheriff’s department had on file. 

“The Sheriff’s Office understands the concerns surrounding emerging technology and takes very seriously its responsibility to protect the privacy and civil rights of the community,” Wenzel said in a statement. “The use of Flock license plate recognition technology is guided by clear safeguards to ensure it is only used for legitimate law enforcement purposes.” 

The department’s policy, Wenzel explained, “prohibits any use outside of legitimate criminal investigations.” He said that deputies undergo initial and ongoing training to use the camera network. “All system activity is logged and subject to review,” said Wenzel.

Maass says the department can’t back-check the searches conducted by other agencies using the Waukesha Flock network, however. “Because when we’re talking about millions of searches coming through their system, you know, every few months…like hundreds of thousands at least every month…how are they actually quality controlling any of these?” Maass told the Wisconsin Examiner. “They’re just not.”

Wenzel said that “the technology is not used for general surveillance, traffic enforcement, or monitoring individuals not connected to an investigation.” The Wisconsin Examiner’s analysis, however, detected 43 searches logged as “surveillance” and 30 searches logged as “traffic offense.” The audit data also contained at least 357 searches logged as “suspicious” or variations of the word, as well as another 14 logged as “suspicious driving behavior,” 52 searches for “road rage” and 36 logged as “identify driver”.

There were also 62 searches related to evictions, which privacy advocates contend  go beyond the public safety roles that the cameras were originally pitched to serve.

“Evictions can be unpredictable and potentially dangerous situations,” said Wenzel. “The removal of individuals from a residence often creates heightened emotions, uncertainty, and sometimes resistance. For this reason, safety is the top priority for both the residents being evicted and the deputies carrying out the court order. Flock is utilized to determine if the former tenants have left the area or could possibly be in the area when the court order is being carried out.” 

Jon McCray Jones, policy analyst for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin, said in a statement that the Waukesha Sheriff’s use of Flock has extended “far beyond the public safety justifications for which these tools were originally sold.” McCray Jones told the Wisconsin Examiner, “These systems were introduced to the public as a means to reduce violent crime and aid in solving serious investigations. However, when they are used for non-criminal purposes, such as evictions, they cross a dangerous line.”  

Waukesha’s uses for evictions were particularly concerning for McCray Jones. “What’s happening here is surveillance technology, operated by taxpayer-funded public servants, being weaponized at the behest of private landlords and corporations,” he said. “That is exactly the kind of mission creep communities are most worried about when it comes to police surveillance. If Flock cameras can be repurposed to target tenants today, what stops law enforcement tomorrow from using facial recognition to track people who fall behind on rent, or phone location data to monitor whether workers are ‘really sick’ when they call off? We’ve seen documented cases where law enforcement misused surveillance systems to track down romantic interests. Once the floodgate is opened, the slide into abuse is fast and quiet.” 

Wenzel said that access to the Flock network is limited to personnel who are properly trained and authorized to use the software, and the department’s policy is regularly reviewed by those personnel. 

“Searches are limited to legitimate law enforcement purposes per department policy,” he wrote in an email statement. The department has conducted its own Flock audits, Wenzel explained, and no sheriff department staff have ever been disciplined or re-trained due to Flock-related issues. Although the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department is part of the federal 287(g) program, in which local law enforcement agencies participate in federal immigration enforcement, Wenzel said that Flock is not used as part of the program, and the Wisconsin Examiner didn’t find any clear examples of immigration-related uses by the sheriff’s department. 

McCray Jones considers the Waukesha Sheriff’s use of Flock to be an example of why “surveillance technology in the hands of law enforcement must be tightly limited, narrowly defined, and rigorously transparent.” He stressed that every use “must be clearly logged and justified — not with vague categories like ‘investigation’ or ‘repo’, but with meaningful explanations the public can actually understand and evaluate. Without strict guardrails, audits like this reveal how quickly tools justified in the name of ‘safety’ turn into instruments of convenience or even private gain.” 

With the growth of surveillance technologies and the civil liberties implications they raise, McCray Jones said that the public “deserves clear proof that it is being used only to reduce crime — particularly violent crime — and not to serve the interests of landlords or corporations. Accountability and transparency aren’t optional add-ons; they are the bare minimum to prevent abuse.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: 7 minutes

Click here to read highlights from the story

• ICE records list more than 130 arrests at county jails in Wisconsin between January and July 2025. Nearly 40% were awaiting a ruling in their first criminal case. 

• While defendants sit in ICE custody, their criminal cases generally continue without them — sometimes with no explanation of their absence.

• That leaves defendants without their day in court, victims without a chance to testify and thousands of dollars in forfeited bail paid by family and friends.

Stacey Murillo Martinez arrived at the Fond du Lac County courthouse in June to pay a $1,500 cash bond for her husband, Miguel Murillo Martinez, as he sat in jail facing drunken driving, bail jumping and firearms charges. 

Scraping the funds together was no small feat. Stacey lives on a fixed income, so Miguel’s boss chipped in. She expected the court to eventually return the $1,500. Bond is meant to serve as collateral to incentivize defendants to show up for their court dates, as she believed Miguel would. 

She did not know U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers would wait inside the Fond du Lac County Jail later that day to take Miguel, an immigrant from Honduras, into their custody. 

Five months later, Miguel still sits in an ICE facility near Terre Haute, Indiana. His detention caused him to miss a court date in September, prompting the Fond du Lac County judge to issue a bench warrant for his arrest. 

“They didn’t tell me, ‘You’re guilty’ or ‘You’re not guilty,’ ” he said, his voice muffled and distorted by the facility’s phone system. 

“I don’t know what’s going to happen,” Stacey said in early November, referring to the fate of her husband and the bail money – three times the monthly rent for the couple’s double-wide in a Fond du Lac manufactured home park. 

ICE records list more than 130 arrests at county jails in Wisconsin between January and July 2025. Nearly 40% were awaiting a ruling in their first criminal case.

While defendants sit in ICE custody, their criminal cases generally continue without them — sometimes with no explanation of their absence to the court. As ICE ramps up its enforcement efforts nationwide, Wisconsin courts are increasingly left with loose ends: defendants without their day in court, victims without a chance to testify and thousands of dollars in forfeited bail paid by family, friends and employers.

“If I get out, I’m going back to my house, and then I have to appear in county court,” Miguel said. 

Miguel is not the only recent example: ICE picked up his nephew, Junior Murillo, at the Fond du Lac County Jail in October as he faced charges for disorderly conduct and domestic abuse.

The Fond du Lac County Jail has transferred 10 people into ICE custody this year, Sheriff Ryan Waldschmidt said. His county is among 15 Wisconsin local governments to have signed agreements with ICE to assist in identifying and apprehending unauthorized immigrants. These are often called 287(g) agreements, referencing the section of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act authorizing the program. 

Fond du Lac is also among the more than two dozen Wisconsin counties participating in the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, through which the Department of Justice partially reimburses incarceration costs for agencies that share data on unauthorized immigrants in their custody. Fond du Lac County received nearly $25,000 through the program in fiscal year 2024, according to Waldschmidt.

Fond du Lac County District Attorney Eric Toney said ICE has been “very easy for us to communicate and work with,” and his prosecutors inform judges if a defendant is arrested in the courthouse. Waldschmidt noted that while his office communicates with prosecutors about inmates in county custody with ICE holds, it lacks a written policy requiring them to notify prosecutors of handoffs to ICE. 

Criminal and immigration courts collide

Wisconsin courts do not consistently track whether a defendant has entered ICE custody, but multiple Wisconsin defense attorneys told Wisconsin Watch that immigration authorities frequently arrest defendants shortly after they post bail. 

“The judge will issue a $500 cash bond, somebody in the family will post it before I’m able to tell them, ‘please don’t,’ and the client will get transferred into immigration custody, where they’re really not able to make the appearance in circuit court,” said Kate Drury, a Waupaca-based criminal defense and immigration attorney.

In rare cases, prosecutors work with ICE to extradite defendants from detention centers in other states – or, even rarer, from other countries. Doing so is complicated and expensive, especially for smaller counties.

Toney said his office can’t justify expenses for bringing any out-of-state defendant back to prosecute lower-level cases, such as driving without a license. 

Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne is similarly reluctant to spend thousands to extradite defendants from faraway detention facilities. “If it’s a misdemeanor retail theft (charge), let’s say, and the person is in California, that extradition cost may be $5,000,” he said. “We’re probably not going to spend $5,000 or bring that person back.”

Ozanne’s office did, however, successfully fight for custody of a Honduran woman accused of killing two teenagers while driving drunk on Highway I-90 north of Madison in July. ICE detained Noelia Saray Martinez Avila, 30, after her attorney posted a $250,000 bond to release her from the Dane County jail in August. Martinez Avila is scheduled to appear in Dane County court in December.

Defendants in ICE custody can sometimes appear for Wisconsin court hearings via video call, though some attorneys report struggling to schedule those from immigration detention centers. 

“Jails and private prisons that operate immigration detention facilities aren’t super focused or motivated in helping defendants make their scheduled court appearances,” Drury said.

When a defendant misses a court date, Toney’s office typically requests a bench warrant and moves to schedule a bail forfeiture hearing — regardless of whether ICE detention caused the absence, he said. 

Making exceptions for ICE detainees would mean “treating somebody differently because of their immigration status,” Toney said. Still, attorneys in his office can exercise their own discretion when deciding whether to seek a warrant or bail forfeiture, he added. The prosecutor responsible for Junior Murillo’s case, for instance, did not request that the court forfeit his bail after his ICE arrest.

Ozanne argued against forfeiting defendants’ bail if they miss a court date while in ICE custody. 

“It wasn’t their unwillingness to show up” that prevented them from appearing in court, he said, adding that his office would be willing to return bail money to whomever posted it on the defendant’s behalf.

“The problem is that we don’t necessarily know” whether a person is in custody, Ozanne added. While he, like Toney, has reported no difficulties communicating with ICE, the agency doesn’t proactively inform his office when it arrests immigrants with active cases in Dane County. 

ICE did not respond to emailed questions from Wisconsin Watch.

Mindy Nolan, a Milwaukee-based attorney who specializes in the interaction between criminal cases and immigration status, said judges generally issue warrants for defendants in ICE custody to keep their criminal cases alive if ICE releases them or they return to the country after deportation. 

“Over the years, what I’ve heard from judges is (that) if the person is present in the United States in the future, they could be picked up on the state court warrant,” she said.

Hearings without defendants

Wisconsin law gives courts at least 30 days to decide whether to forfeit a defendant’s bail. 

“The default assumption seems to be that the immigrant could appear and the statute places the burden on the defendant to prove that it was impossible for them to appear,” Drury said. “But how does the defendant meet that burden when they’re being held in immigration custody, transferred all over the country, potentially transferred outside the United States?”

Wisconsin courts have held more than 2,700 bail forfeiture hearings thus far in 2025, though the state’s count does not provide details on the reasons for defendants’ absence. If the defendant misses the hearing, the defendant’s attorney or those who paid the bail can challenge the forfeiture by demonstrating that the absence was unavoidable. 

On a Friday morning in late October, a Racine County judge issued a half-dozen bail forfeiture orders in just minutes. The court had scheduled a translator for most of the cases, and she sat alone at the defense table, occasionally scanning the room in case any defendants slipped in at the last minute.

“The problem is getting someone at the bond forfeiture hearings to assert those arguments on behalf of clients,” Drury said. Public defenders are often stretched thin, and family members may be unaware of upcoming hearings. Court records indicate Miguel Murillo lacks a defense attorney assigned to his case in Fond du Lac, leaving only Stacey to argue against bail forfeiture. 

Such hearings tend to be more substantial when attorneys are present, boosting the likelihood of bail money being returned. 

Miguel Murillo’s case does not involve an alleged victim, meaning forfeited bail would go to Fond du Lac County. Court costs typically exceed the value of forfeited bail, Toney said. 

When cases involve alleged victims, Wisconsin law requires that courts use forfeited bail for victim restitution – even without a conviction.

What’s missing are judicial findings that the defendant is responsible for the alleged actions and caused suffering to the victim, Drury said. 

“Without a conviction, I don’t understand how you maintain that policy and the presumption of innocence, which is such an important constitutional cornerstone of this country.”

Immigration arrests often throw a wrench in the gears of the criminal justice system, Ozanne said. 

“It’s most problematic for us when the person hasn’t gone through their due process,” he said. “We have victims… who don’t really get the benefit of the process or have the ability to communicate with the courts about what they think should happen.”

“In a sense,” he added, “that person has a get-out-of-jail-free card.” 

Months in ICE detention 

Miguel Murillo left Honduras a decade ago, initially settling in Houston. While in Texas, he says he survived a shooting and sought, but never obtained, a U-visa, which provides temporary legal status to victims of certain crimes. 

The shooting prompted him to head north to Wisconsin, where he found construction work and married Stacey, a lifelong Wisconsinite. Court records mark occasional run-ins with law enforcement and misdemeanors over the last five years, culminating in the April 2025 charges that preceded his ICE arrest. 

Stacey, who is receiving treatment for breast cancer, relied on her husband to keep their household afloat. In his absence, she said, “I have to beg, plead, and borrow to get any assistance.” 

“Right now, as I go through this situation… there’s no one to take care of her,” Miguel told Wisconsin Watch. The couple hope that argument will sway a Chicago immigration court judge to release him from ICE custody. The court held its final hearing on his order of removal case in late October, Stacey said, but has yet to issue a ruling.

Junior’s case progressed far more quickly. After his arrest in October, he spent just over a week in ICE custody before immigration authorities put him on a plane to Honduras. 

Miguel, on the other hand, has spent roughly five months in various ICE detention facilities. He was scheduled to appear by video in Fond du Lac County court Thursday morning. He never joined the call. 

“I don’t know what happened,” he wrote to Wisconsin Watch afterwards. “I was waiting and (facility staff) didn’t call me.”

Stacey couldn’t attend the hearing for health reasons, and Miguel has yet to secure an attorney for his Fond du Lac case. Court records do not indicate whether the prosecutor requested forfeiture of his $1,500 bail.

Courts left with loose ends when ICE detains criminal defendants is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Federal agents patrol the halls of immigration court in New York City in October. While arrests at federal immigration courts have received widespread attention, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement have also arrested individuals at state courthouses, prompting some Democratic states to impose restrictions. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

A day after President Donald Trump took office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued a new directive to its agents: Arrests at courthouses, restricted under the Biden administration, were again permissible.

In Connecticut, a group of observers who keep watch on ICE activity in and around Stamford Superior Court have since witnessed a series of arrests. In one high-profile case in August, federal agents pursued two men into a bathroom.

“Is it an activity you want to be interfering with, people fulfilling their duty when they’re called to court and going to court? For me, it’s insanity,” said David Michel, a Democratic former state representative in Connecticut who helps observe courthouse activity.

Fueled by the Stamford uproar, Connecticut lawmakers last week approved restrictions on civil arrests and mask-wearing by federal law enforcement at state courthouses. And on Monday, a federal judge tossed a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice that had sought to block similar restrictions in New York.

They are the latest examples of a growing number of Democratic states, and some judges, pushing back against ICE arrests in and around state courthouses. State lawmakers and other officials worry the raids risk keeping people from testifying in criminal trials, fighting evictions or seeking restraining orders against domestic abusers.

The courthouse arrests mark an intensifying clash between the Trump administration and Democratic states that pits federal authority against state sovereignty. Sitting at the core of the fight are questions about how much power states have to control what happens in their own courts and the physical grounds they sit on.

In Illinois, lawmakers approved a ban on civil immigration arrests at courthouses in October. In Rhode Island, lawmakers plan to again push for a ban after an earlier measure didn’t advance in March. Connecticut lawmakers were codifying limits imposed by the state Supreme Court chief justice in September. Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont is expected to sign the bill.

States that are clamping down on ICE continue to allow the agency to make criminal arrests, as opposed to noncriminal civil arrests. Many people arrested and subsequently deported are taken on noncriminal, administrative warrants. As of Sept. 21, 71.5% of ICE detainees had no criminal convictions, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a data research organization.

Some states, such as New York, already have limits on immigration enforcement in courthouses that date back to the first Trump administration, when ICE agents also engaged in courthouse arrests. New York’s Protect Our Courts Act, in place since 2020, prohibits civil arrests of people at state and local courthouses without a judicial warrant. The law also applies to people traveling to and from court, extending protections beyond courthouse grounds.

“One of the cornerstones of our democracy is open access to the courts. When that access is denied or chilled, all of us are made less safe and less free,” said Oren Sellstrom, litigation director at Lawyers for Civil Rights, a Boston-based group that works to provide legal support to immigrants, people of color and low-income individuals.

But in addition to challenging the New York law, the Justice Department is prosecuting a Wisconsin state judge, alleging she illegally helped a migrant avoid ICE agents.

“We aren’t some medieval kingdom; there are no legal sanctuaries where you can hide and avoid the consequences for breaking the law,” U.S. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement to Stateline. “Nothing in the constitution prohibits arresting a lawbreaker where you find them.”

Some Republican lawmakers oppose efforts to limit ICE arrests in and near courthouses, arguing state officials should stay out of the way of federal law enforcement. The Ohio Senate in June passed a bill that would prohibit public officials from interfering in immigration arrests or prohibiting cooperation with ICE; the move came after judges in Franklin County, which includes Columbus, imposed restrictions on civil arrests in courthouses.

“The United States is a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of law and order. To have a civilized society, laws must be respected, this includes immigration laws,” Ohio Republican state Sen. Kristina Roegner, the bill’s sponsor, said in a news release at the time.

Roegner didn’t respond to Stateline’s interview request. The legislation remains in a House committee.

Knowing where a target will be

Courthouses offer an attractive location for ICE to make immigration arrests, according to both ICE and advocates for migrants.

Court records and hearing schedules often indicate who is expected in the building on any given day. Administrative warrants don’t allow ICE to enter private homes without permission, but the same protections don’t apply in public areas, such as courthouses. And many people have a strong incentive to show up for court, knowing that warrants can potentially be issued for their arrest if they don’t.

“So in some respects, it’s easy pickings,” said Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island.

In June, ICE arrested Pablo Grave de la Cruz at Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal in Cranston. A 36-year-old Rhode Island resident, he had come from Guatemala illegally as a teenager.

“They pulled up on him like he was a murderer or a rapist,” friend Brittany Donohue told the Rhode Island Current, which chronicled de la Cruz’s case. “He was leaving traffic court.”

An immigration judge has since granted de la Cruz permission to self-deport.

McLaughlin, the Homeland Security assistant secretary, said in her statement that allowing law enforcement to make arrests “of criminal illegal aliens in courthouses is common sense” — conserving law enforcement resources because officers know where a target will be. The department said the practice is safer for officers and the community, noting that individuals have gone through courthouse security.

Still, ICE’s directive on courthouse arrests sets some limits on the agency’s activity.

Agents “should, to the extent practicable” conduct civil immigration arrests in non-public areas of the courthouse and avoid public entrances. Actions should be taken “discreetly” to minimize disruption to court proceedings, and agents should generally avoid areas wholly dedicated to non-criminal proceedings, such as family court, the directive says.

Crucially, the directive says ICE can conduct civil immigration arrests “where such action is not precluded by laws imposed by the jurisdiction.” In other words, the agency’s guidance directs agents to respect state and local bans on noncriminal arrests.

Trump administration court actions

But the Trump administration has also gone to court to try to overcome state-level restrictions.

The Justice Department sued in June over New York’s Protect Our Courts Act, arguing that it “purposefully shields dangerous aliens” from lawful detention. The department says the law violates the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause, under which federal law supersedes state law.

New York Democratic Attorney General Letitia James argued the state law doesn’t conflict with federal law and sought the lawsuit’s dismissal.

U.S. District Court Judge Mae D’Agostino, an appointee of President Barack Obama, on Monday granted James’ motion. The judge wrote that the “entire purpose” of the lawsuit was to allow the federal government to commandeer New York’s resources — such as court schedules and court security screening measures — to aid immigration enforcement, even though states cannot generally be required to help the federal government enforce federal law.

“Compelling New York to allow federal immigration authorities to reap the benefits of the work of state employees is no different than permitting the federal government to commandeer state officials directly in furtherance of federal objectives,” the judge wrote.

The Justice Department didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The department is also prosecuting Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan, who prosecutors allege helped a person living in the country illegally avoid ICE agents in April inside a Milwaukee courthouse by letting him exit a courtroom through a side door. (Agents apprehended the individual near the courthouse.) A federal grand jury indicted Dugan on a count of concealing an individual and a count of obstructing a proceeding.

In court documents, Dugan’s lawyers have called the prosecution “virtually unprecedented and entirely unconstitutional.”

Dugan has pleaded not guilty, and a trial is set for December.

Lawmakers seek ‘order’ in courthouses

Rhode Island Democratic state Sen. Meghan Kallman is championing legislation that would generally ban civil arrests at courthouses. The measure received a hearing, but a legislative committee recommended further study.

Kallman hopes the bill will go further next year. The sense of urgency has intensified, she said, and more people now understand the consequences of what is happening.

“In order to create a system of law that is functioning and that encourages trust, we have to make those [courthouse] spaces safe,” she said.

Back in Connecticut, Democratic state Rep. Steven Stafstrom said his day job as a commercial litigator brings him into courthouses across the state weekly. Based on his conversations with court staff, other lawyers and senior administration within the judicial branch, he said “there’s a genuine fear, not just for safety, but for disruptions of orderly court processes in our courthouses.”

Some Connecticut Republicans have questioned whether a law that only pertains to civil arrests would prove effective. State Rep. Craig Fishbein, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, noted during floor debate that entering the United States without permission is a criminal offense — a misdemeanor for first-time offenders and a felony for repeat offenders. Because of that, he suggested the measure wouldn’t stop many courthouse arrests.

“The advocates think they’re getting no arrests in courthouses, but they’ve been sold a bill of goods,” he said.

Stafstrom, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, said in response that he believed the legislation protects many people who are in the country illegally because that crime is often not prosecuted.

“All we’re asking is for ICE to recognize the need for order in our courthouses,” Stafstrom said.

Stateline reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@stateline.org.

The Waupun Correctional Institution, the oldest prison in Wisconsin built in the 1850s, sits in the middle of a residential neighborhood (Photo | Wisconsin Examiner)

Under scrutiny over prison deaths and living conditions, the Wisconsin Department of Corrections has received recommendations that aim to improve life in adult prisons, including solitary confinement, suicide watch, mental health care and basic corrections practices. 

The study was conducted by Falcon Correctional and Community Services Inc. experts partnering with the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC). The department said it is planning to contract with the consulting firm to create a framework to implement recommendations. 

“While the report affirms that DOC is moving in the right direction, it also shows that there is more work to be done,” Corrections Secretary Jared Hoy said in the department’s press release. 

In a statement, the advocacy group Ex-Incarcerated People Organizing (EXPO) said the report “confirms what directly impacted people and advocates have said for years: Wisconsin’s prisons are dangerously overcrowded, under-resourced and in desperate need of healing-centered reform.”

Many of the suggested changes will affect the entire correctional system, the agency said. Consultants and staff will work to “reimagine existing space, create new processes and training at five pilot sites.” 

In a letter dated July 9, 2024, Hoy told a state Assembly committee that the department planned on bringing on Falcon for an outside review. News of criminal charges against staff at Waupun Correctional Institution over prisoner deaths had broken just weeks before Hoy wrote the letter. The same day, the committee heard testimony about the toll of solitary confinement and other issues in the prison system. 

The department and Falcon signed a contract in November 2024, and the Examiner reported in January on details of the partnership obtained through public records requests. Criminal justice reform advocates expressed hope the report would be beneficial but have called for independent oversight of the Department of Corrections. Last week, the department published the 137-page final report, which lists strengths for the department to build on as well as recommendations for improvement.  

The report states that while all recommendations are made based on Falcon’s overall review of the adult prison system, “we understand that the majority of recommendations will require funding, often requiring budget approval.”

Susan Franzen of the prison reform advocacy group Ladies of SCI expressed concern about whether overcrowding and staffing shortages will affect DOC’s ability to effectively carry out recommendations. 

“Legislators need to help the DOC out by giving them a fighting chance to make these changes,” Franzen wrote in an email to the Wisconsin Examiner. 

The report states that the study involved working with DOC officials, gathering data, reviewing policies, statutes and prior studies and conducting virtual workshops with DOC experts and others, including formerly incarcerated people and advocates. 

It also included visits to 15 facilities, such as the Waupun and Green Bay prisons, and interviews with staff and incarcerated people.

Suicide watch

Preventing suicide is a pressing concern, the report states in a section that summarized information from mental health-related discussions with staff during mental health workshops and site visits.

One concern is that observation cells are typically in restrictive housing units; in addition, “individuals on observation status are not allowed therapeutic items, visits, phone calls, or recreation,” the report states.  

People who pose threats to themselves, or who pose threats to others because of mental illness, may be put on observation.

The report recommends housing people in observation in “more appropriate environments that support therapeutic care and patient safety.” 

Over the last 15 years, 59 people died by suicide in Wisconsin prisons, an average of four deaths per year. Suicide watch placements reportedly rose from 1,200 to 1,500 per year to about 2,500 in 2024. In June, the Examiner reported on Victor Garcia, who died due to an attempt to hang himself while he was on observation in a Wisconsin prison.

Psychological services staff decide what items a person can have access to while they’re on clinical observation. Department policy provides a list to use as a starting point, including items like soap, toilet paper and suicide-resistant clothing. 

The report described the list as “very limiting,” and the security mat or mattress was observed to be inadequate for most people on suicide precautions. Later on in the report, it suggests replacing small sleeping mats with suicide-resistant mattresses.

Solitary confinement

The Falcon report includes priorities and steps to take on “restrictive housing” in state prisons, where incarcerated people experience “very limited” out-of-cell programming and recreation time, such as:

• Giving people in restrictive housing at least two hours of recreation and/or programming each day, not including out-of-cell time for necessary activities, such as showers 
• Reviewing the status, programming and needs of people in restrictive housing every week instead of every 30 days 
• Improving cleanliness and removing all graffiti 
• Establishing units that are alternatives to restricted housing for people with serious mental illnesses

Incarcerated people in Wisconsin prisons can be put in restrictive housing as a punishment for a violation or when having the person live with the general population would create a serious threat. 

An average stay in disciplinary separation — a punishment for committing a violation — decreased from 39.7 days in January 2019 to 27.4 days in April 2025, the report notes. However, this varies by facility, and the latest average published online for Green Bay Correctional Institution is 48.7 days. 

The department has begun to address the number of people in restrictive housing and how long they spend there, the report states. However, the number of people placed in restrictive housing has not changed significantly over the last five years.

“High rates of substance use and mental illness among individuals placed in restrictive housing was noted, often contributing to a ‘revolving door’ for this population,” the report stated in the section about mental health insights from staff. 

Solitary confinement has potential effects of physical harm, health issues and negative effects on mental health, the report notes.

Solitary confinement is also associated with increased risk of violence towards oneself and suicide, and research shows that solitary confinement as a tool does not reduce institutional misconduct or violence or the risk of recidivism, the report states. 

There were 950 people in restrictive housing as of September, 863 of whom were placed there due to a rule violation, according to online Department of Corrections data. 

Under a policy that went into effect last May, a placement of over 120 days has to be approved by the assistant administrator for the division of adult institutions, the report noted. 

An overcrowded system

All medium and maximum-security facilities in Wisconsin except for Waupun Correctional Institution are over capacity, as of January, the report states. Facilities for men were at 130% of capacity, while women’s prisons were at 166% of capacity. People are living at security levels that don’t fit their classification — for example, a person sentenced to medium-security being held in maximum security, or a person sentenced to minimum-security being held in medium security. 

The state building commission took an initial step toward updating the aging and overcrowded prison system last month, when it agreed to create plans for a revamp. 

Inconsistency in the department 

Leaders and staff at the facility level of the agency felt a lack of autonomy in their day-to-day jobs, the report found. They believe there is “significant and often excessive and unnecessary scrutiny from outside entities.” 

But the study also found a problem with “a general lack of uniformity across facilities,” which is creating challenges relating to monitoring, oversight and accountability. It recommends “system-wide alignment” on areas including basic security practices, incident reporting and investigation processes.

The report recommends that the agency take an approach that involves both oversight and collaboration. The goal would be to carry out the strategy of DOC leadership with both efforts from leadership and “input and innovation” from frontline staff, stakeholders and incarcerated people. 

A central part of a section called “Back-to-Basics in Correctional Practices” recommends a three to five-day training for all staff about basic corrections practices, such as searches, use of force and out-of-cell time for people in restrictive housing. 

The department “has experienced a great deal of staffing changes, with a significant number of the current staff hired during or after the COVID19 pandemic,” the report found.

Strained mental health care

Mental health services were described as strained, according to the section of the report about mental health-related discussions with staff.

That section of the report suggests that an “unsustainable” number of people have been assigned to receive mental health care at least once every six months, and that this interferes with treatment for people who need more intensive care. 

Nearly half of all incarcerated people in adult prisons had been classified as needing mental health care as of May 20. It’s a much higher rate than other state correctional departments see, the report states. 

Department data shows the agency isn’t fully staffed in psychological services, with a vacancy rate of 19.7%. 

About nine in ten incarcerated women were on the mental health caseload. The report also noted that the population of maximum security facilities has a higher percentage of incarcerated people with mental health needs than medium or minimum security facilities.

Other recommendations in the report address medical practices, investigations and intelligence practices, data management and human resources and staffing.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

American Civil Liberties Union lead attorney Lee Gelernt holds a press conference outside the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after a March 21, 2025, hearing on deportation flights that occurred despite a court’s restraining order in place. (Photo by Ariana Figueroa/States Newsroom)  

WASHINGTON — U.S. District Judge James Boasberg said Wednesday he will proceed with his inquiry on whether there is sufficient evidence to charge officials in the Trump administration with contempt for violating his order to return deportation flights to the United States.

Following an appeals ruling last week, Boasberg has the ability to resume a contempt investigation against the Trump administration relating to his March 15 order, which required several deportation planes that contained hundreds of Venezuelan men removed under an obscure wartime law to return to the U.S. Instead, the planes landed in El Salvador, and 137 men were detained at the mega-prison known as CECOT.

“I certainly intend to find out what happened that day,” Boasberg said.

He ordered the Department of Justice and the American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the suit against the government, to submit by Monday filings on how to proceed with the inquiry, such as potential witnesses and hearings as well as sworn declarations to the court. 

An attorney on behalf of the Department of Justice, Tiberius T. Davis said the Trump administration doesn’t believe Boasberg should move forward with the inquiry.

Boasberg cited several appellate judges who have ruled that he has the ability and jurisdiction to continue his fact-finding inquiry into the events of March 15.

“Justice requires me to move promptly,” he said.

Boasberg told Davis that he wants to get to the bottom of which official, or officials, gave the order to ignore his temporary restraining order to turn the planes back toward U.S. soil while they were in the air. 

Removals challenged

Additionally, Boasberg heard arguments from ACLU lead attorney Lee Gelernt on a request to require the Trump administration to give the 137 Venezuelan men the opportunity to challenge their removal under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. 

The men removed under the law remained at CECOT for several months until they were returned to Venezuela in a prisoner exchange. 

Gelernt said that a majority of that group want the opportunity to challenge their removal under the wartime law, in the form of a habeas petition, which immigrants use to challenge their detention. He said the ACLU has been able to reach about one-third of the group members and they wish to pursue their claims either back in the U.S. or through a virtual hearing. 

“They are still very, very traumatized about what happened,” Gelernt said, adding that many fear being returned to CECOT if they come back to the U.S.

Remote hearings?

Davis argued that if the men want to continue with their habeas claim, then they would have to be detained in the U.S., rather than make the challenge virtually. 

“To fulfill a habeas, they have to be in our custody one way or another,” Davis said. 

He said they would likely be taken to the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but said that was not definite. 

Gelernt said the federal government should provide a plan in order for the men to make their due process claim.  

“Some may want to know if there is a remote option, if they found a sufficiently safe hiding place within Venezuela,” Gelernt said.

Boasberg agreed, and said the U.S. Supreme Court also agreed when it ordered the Trump administration to facilitate the return of the wrongly deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia as part of a due process case. 

Abrego Garcia was also taken to CECOT and detailed the physical and psychological torture he experienced there. 

The Palmyra public safety building. (Photo via Palmyra Fire Rescue Facebook page)

The Village of Palmyra in southeastern Wisconsin announced Friday that the village board and police department have decided not to move forward with a controversial agreement with U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE). 

“We deeply value the feedback we have received from our community — on all sides of the discussion,” Village Board President Tim Gorsegner and Interim Police Chief Paul Blount said in a statement on the village’s website. 

“After careful consideration of those voices, along with additional research and review, we believe that at this time, the best course forward for Palmyra is to take no further action on the proposed agreement,” the village officials said. 

Blount previously said that the department’s application to ICE’s task force model was pending review by the village board. 

ICE’s task force model allows officers to “enforce limited immigration authority while performing routine police duties, such as identifying an alien at a DUI checkpoint and sharing information directly with ICE,” and it lays out when officers can make immigration arrests. Officers may also exercise limited authority on ICE-led task forces.  

In September, Blount said Palmyra police would work with ICE when someone was involved in criminal activity, wanted on a warrant or facing criminal charges. He said they would not go door to door to check peoples’ documentation or profile people who they think may lack documentation.

The immigrant rights organization Voces de la Frontera celebrated Palmyra’s decision not to work with ICE. Executive Director Christine Neumann-Ortiz said in a statement, “when we push back together, we stop policies that harm immigrant families and undermine public safety.” 

The village’s statement said the original intent in exploring the agreement was to collaborate with federal law enforcement partners in ways that could strengthen their ability to reduce crime and keep Palmyra safe. The village said it also sought to prevent human trafficking and narcotics trafficking. 

Blount said in September that the program would allow for access to databases and resources that enhance investigations and help combat serious crimes such as narcotics trafficking and human trafficking. He also said the program would come with significant financial incentives from the federal government. 

On Monday afternoon, ICE removed Palmyra from a list of departments with which it cooperates on its website.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Protesters march outside of a new ICE facility being constructed in Milwaukee. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Activist groups and community members gathered Saturday morning to denounce the construction of a new federal immigration enforcement detention facility on Milwaukee’s Northwest Side. Renovations at the property, located at 11924 W Lake Park Drive, were clearly underway, with construction equipment sitting behind new fencing, piles of dirt and stacks of building materials visible through the building’s dark windows. Outside, protesters marched in the street and delivered speeches. 

The 36,000-square-foot detention and processing center is planned to serve as a central hub for southeastern Wisconsin, holding people before deportation or transfer to other detention centers.

“You may be here, but you are not welcome here,” said Ald. Larresa Taylor — who represents the district where the facility will be located. Although the city cannot prevent ICE from taking over the facility, Taylor said that this “doesn’t mean that we are going to accept it laying down.” 

Activists from Voces de la Frontera, Comité Sin Fronteras, the Milwaukee Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, Never Again Action–Wisconsin, the Party for Socialism & Liberation, and the Wisconsin Coalition for Justice in Palestine picketed outside the building for close to two hours. Towards the end of the event, a drone was seen flying overhead, which was not operated by any of the activist groups who held the rally. In a empty parking lot nearby, several deputies appeared to be packing away equipment in the trunk a Milwaukee County Sheriff’s vehicle. The Sheriff’s office didn’t respond to requests for comment on whether its drone team was flying over the Saturday protest. 

Opponents of the facility say that its opening moved forward without community input or consent, and that it will perpetuate troubling uses of force and arrests in cities nationwide including Chicago. The facility will be used to  process ICE detainees, as well as immigrants who must come in for regular check-ins.

Christine Neumann-Ortiz, executive director of Voces de la Frontera, applauded Taylor, calling her “the first person to sound the alarm months ago about the expansion of this detention center, and to call attention and condemn what was happening in our city.”  The building is privately owned by Milwaukee Governmental LLC, which originally requested modifications to the property (something Taylor learned about in December). The LLC is linked to the Illinois-based WD Schorsch LLC, which owns properties leased to federal government agencies. 

“It’s not an accident what is happening, where this facility is being chosen to be built,” said Neumann-Ortiz. “It’s part of a long-term pattern of discrimination and marginalization, and criminalization of working class people of color.” Neumann-Oritz said that instead of spending “millions” on the facility, “that money should be used to pay for FoodShare, BadgerCare, and our public schools.” 

 Angela Lang, executive director of Black Leaders Organizing Communities (BLOC), said, “We are not free, until we are all free.” Lang added that Black communities “know what it’s like to be ripped away from our families and locked away,” and that people are concerned about federal agents’ behavior in cities like Chicago. “And we have been worried for months, if not years, ‘is this going to happen to Milwaukee?’” 

Over recent months months, videos have suggested an escalating patter of force from federal agents including shooting people in the head with pepper balls, placing protesters in chokeholds, deploying tear gas in crowded neighborhoods in broad daylight, arresting and attacking journalists, arresting parents in front of their children, and having unprofessional verbal exchanges with citizens. 

Although Milwaukee hasn’t seen protest-related clashes, ICE stirred anxiety and condemnation earlier this year after arresting members of families with mixed-immigration status at the Milwaukee County Courthouse as they attended court hearings. Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan was also arrested and criminally charged after the federal government accused her of attempting to hide a person sought by ICE who’d attended a hearing in her courtroom. Dugan is expected to go to trial in federal court in December. Other high profile arrests and deportations of community members have also occurred in Milwaukee during the first six months of the second  Trump administration. 

Conor Mika, a student activist at the Milwaukee School of Engineering (MSOE) condemned what he said is a lack of transparency and accountability for his  school’s relationship with ICE, which has been using a university building for operations in Milwaukee. “It’s time MSOE takes a stand. It’s on MSOE to slow down ICE’s operations, and protect its students by removing ICE from this building, and refusing any future collaborations with these agencies conducting mass deportations in our city.”

Leah Janke and Tanya Brown both attended the rally Saturday, and told the Wisconsin Examiner that it was important to make their voices heard. “I think it’s important that people here know that we don’t want this,” said Brown. “It’s not just a small community that doesn’t want it, it’s everybody. We don’t want it.” Janke said. “It’s 2025, and this is completely unacceptable to be running an ICE facility like this, and be deporting people illegally, without due process. This is insanity. It doesn’t feel right in any way.” Janke added, “I’ve seen a lot happening in Chicago, and that’s my fear…that’s my biggest fear.”

Besides attending rallies, Janke has been making “whistle kits” filled with whistles and information about reporting ICE, or alerting the community if an arrest is happening. “Be safe out there,” said Janke. “Because honestly, it’s scary and people are getting  hurt.”

Raúl Ríos, an activist with both Comité Sin Fronteras and Party for Socialism and Liberation, said it was important to rally people on Saturday both on the North and South Sides of Milwaukee, especially since the city is one of the most segregated in America. “Most people that I’ve heard, not only today but previously, had said that they had no idea that this was even being constructed, and that it’s going to be used as the main facility for southeast Wisconsin,” Rios told the Examiner. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

 

Advocates and lawmakers attend a listening session on social justice issues hosted by WISDOM. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Advocates and lawmakers packed a room at the Capitol Wednesday for a listening session hosted by WISDOM, a statewide network of faith-based social justice organizations, to discuss immigration, criminal justice, housing and environmental policy. Participants said they hoped hearing personal stories would move lawmakers beyond “political posturing” and inspire change.

“It’s been almost nine years since I was last charged with anything,” said Jessica Jacobs, a formerly incarcerated woman who was one of the first to speak. “I’ve rebuilt my life, I’ve stayed in recovery, and I’ve dedicated myself to helping others do the same. But my criminal record still follows me, especially when it comes to finding a place to live.” Jacobs said that every time she pays a non-refundable fee only to fail a background check for housing, she’s reminded “that society hasn’t fully forgiven me, even though I’ve done everything I can do to make things right.”

When Jacobs was released from prison in 2010, she was placed in a transitional living program. It should have been a second chance, but it wasn’t because that apartment complex was in the very same neighborhood where she would get the substances she used. “It was a setup for failure,” said Jacobs, adding that women and men all over Wisconsin have similar experiences. “Imagine being locked up, and all you can imagine is being with your children again. You count the days dreaming about that reunion. But when you’re finally released, you find out that you can’t get housing that will allow your children to live with you. The pain doesn’t just stop with the mother, the children suffer, too. Families stay separated not because of lack of love or effort, but because there’s nowhere safe and stable for them to go home to.”

Jacobs finally found a landlord who was also in recovery, and could empathize with her situation. “No one’s success story should depend on luck,” she said. “When people don’t have housing, we see the same cycles of recidivism repeat and repeat. Without a place to live, it’s almost impossible to look for a job, maintain recovery, or reunite with your children and family. We say that we want people to come home and be better. But how can they if we won’t give them a place to call home?”

Crystal Keller, a member of the group My Way Out, shared  the struggle incarcerated mothers have in Wisconsin. Keller’s daughter is locked up at the Taycheedah Correctional Institution, where she will be for two years. Keller pointed to a 1991 Wisconsin law that says that incarcerated mothers should be housed with their babies until they turn 12 months old. Yet Keller’s daughter has never been offered access to that program, despite having a two-month-old when she was sentenced. “The program was allocated $198,000 per year,” Keller said. “Where is that money? That’s $6.7 million in the 35 years that they’ve never offered it.” 

Keller said that the Department of Corrections claims to offer the program for women who are out in the community. “That’s a lie,” said Keller. “…when are they going to start complying with the law?” Keller said that when her daughter was sent to Taycheedah, she was placed in restrictive housing for the first six months. “And it took them a month to pick her up from the county jail,” said Keller. “She was not allowed to hold her son for seven months, from two months old until just last month.” Keller’s family would travel from Milwaukee to Fond du Lac just to do hour-long video visits. “Often, visits would get cancelled…Why do I even need to go there?” 

Just last Sunday during a visit, Keller said that another family was told by a correctional officer that they weren’t allowed to even play hand-clapping games with their children. “It’s disgusting, it needs to stop, and DOC who punishes people for breaking the law has been breaking the law for 35 years.” 

Attendees drew attention to other conditions endured by people held in Wisconsin’s prisons and jails. Randy Gage, a member of WISDOM’s Solitary & Conditions of Confinement Task Force, who also has a background in psychology and experience working in prisons in both Georgia and Wisconsin. “Segregation is not the best way to go,” said Gage. “We went through a long period starting around the 1980’s of ‘get tough on crime’. Enough already with getting tough on crime! Enough!” Gage said that when he was growing up in Milwaukee, he didn’t have to worry about things like gun violence. “That didn’t happen, and that was before ‘get tough on time’. Since ‘get tough on crime’ all of this is going on? Don’t tell me it works. No, it doesn’t work.” 

Advocates also discussed Act 196, a bipartisan law that favors short-term sanctions for probation and parole violations like a weekend stint in jail, treatment program or community service over total revocation back to prison. “For more than a decade, the DOC has resisted implementing this law that could’ve reduced and stabilized our prison population,” said Tom Gilbert, a member of MOSES. “Finally in June of this year, the DOC issued proposed rules, but they are an extreme disappointment.” Although the proposed rules adopted some features of the law, they do not establish “a system of short-term sanctions,”, said Gilbert, saying that the DOC is choosing to keep a system that “sabotages” people’s chances of returning home rather than promoting healing. “It would save millions of taxpayer dollars spent on needless incarcerations,” said Gilbert. “Those dollars could be re-directed to proven, successful programs such as treatment programs and diversions.” 

Others pushed for restoring voting rights to formerly incarcerated people, which is already law in 25 states. Jeremy Dings, a formerly incarcerated member of WISDOM’s Post-Release Issues Task Force, said that he has not been able to vote in eight election cycles because even though he has been  back in the community for 13 years. Dings said that democracy is strongest when it includes everyone’s voice, and that such a policy change would help people transition and feel like active, valued members of the community. 

Restoring drivers licenses for immigrants was also discussed by immigrant rights advocates and dairy farmers. People in mixed-status families take great risk to perform simple tasks like driving to work, or dropping their children off at school, they said. “This is not just about paperwork,”  said Grace Mariscal, a student at St. John’s Northwestern Academies. “This is about parents being able to drive their children to school safely, or go to a doctor’s appointment, without fear.” 

Mariscal said that 19 other states have passed laws that allow members of mixed-status families to have drivers licenses, policies which reduce hit-and-run accidents, increase state revenue, and reduced law enforcement costs. “These reforms would also strengthen Wisconsin’s economies,” said Mariscal. “Our dairy farms, our factories, our restaurants, our food processing plants all depend on immigrant labor. By allowing workers to drive legally, we help businesses maintain stable workforces, and ensure that the industries that feed and sustain our state continue to thrive.”

The rights of nature was also discussed, with advocates pushing for laws that establish personhood for natural habitats, rivers, forests and other ecosystems. “It really comes out of Indigenous values,” said Bill Van Lopik, a member of ESTHER. “It is an international movement.” Van Lopik pointed out that in America, even corporations are given personhood. So why not the ecosystems and natural environments that all things, human or otherwise, depend on? Van Lopik also advocated for policies to require sulfide mines to prove that they won’t be harmful to the environment before digging begins, and new protections for Devil’s Lake State Park. “Wisconsin has a long history of environmental stewardship”, said Van Lopik, pointing out that former Wisconsin Gov.  Gaylord Nelson was the founder of Earth Day. 

Advocates also discussed closing the prison in Green Bay, and granting parole to older incarcerated people who were sentenced when they were young. Some in the room condemned Gov. Tony Evers for using his veto power to remove a deadline to close Green Bay Correctional, and pointed to the fact that the Lincoln Hills juvenile prison is still open despite plans to build new prisons to replace the aging and controversial facility. 

Several lawmakers including Reps. Darrin Madison (D-Milwaukee), Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee), and new legislators including Amaad Rivera-Wagner (D-Green Bay) and Karen DeSanto (D-Baraboo) said  hearing stories like those shared Wednesday are crucial for their work.

“Remember the folks that are not here,” said Madison, who told an emotional story about his brother and friends who struggled with mental illness, suicidal thoughts, and incarceration. “Give your anger to those folks, channel your grief towards those folks, because it’s a damn shame that they’re not here.” 

This article has been edited to correct the names of Bill Van Lopik and WISDOM’s Post-Release Issues Task Force.

Telephones inside the Women’s Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center in Vandalia, Mo., where incarcerated people pay per-minute rates to call loved ones. (Photo by Amanda Watford/Stateline)

The Federal Communications Commission voted to roll back limits on how much companies can charge incarcerated people and their families for phone and video calls.

The 2-1 vote in late October reverses rate caps the FCC adopted last year under a 2023 law that allows the agency to set limits on prison phone and video call rates. Critics say the rates are kept high by limited competition among major providers such as Securus Technologies and ViaPath.

Under the new interim rules, phone calls will cost up to $0.11 per minute in large prisons and $0.18 per minute in the smallest jails. Video calls will cost up to $0.23 per minute in large facilities and as much as $0.41 in small ones.

Only three states — Florida, Kentucky and Oklahoma — currently have rates above the new rates, meaning most prison systems across the country are already below the previously adopted 2024 rate caps.

The new 2025 rates will take effect 120 days after being published in the Federal Register.

In June, the FCC had abruptly announced a two-year delay in implementing the 2024 rate caps after receiving complaints from local sheriffs and prison telecom companies. Republican attorneys general from 14 states also filed a lawsuit last year challenging the commission’s authority to limit how much prisons and jails can charge for phone calls, arguing that the rules deprived correctional facilities of needed funding.

Republican Commissioners Brendan Carr and Olivia Trusty, both appointed by President Donald Trump, supported the rollback. Carr argued the previous caps limited facilities’ ability to recover safety and security costs, such as monitoring calls, leading some to scale back or eliminate calling services altogether. Trusty said the 2024 rules “did not always strike the right balance,” and cited “unintended consequences” like service disruptions in some facilities.

At least one small jail — in Baxter County, Arkansas — ended phone services earlier this year in protest of the lower rate caps.

Democratic Commissioner Anna Gomez, appointed by President Joe Biden, voted against the order and called it “indefensible.” She said the decision gives monopoly telecom providers “the authority to increase the costs for families to maintain critical connections with their loved ones in prison.”

Advocates for incarcerated people condemned the vote.

“These changes are a betrayal of the families who entrusted the FCC to protect them from the notoriously predatory correctional telecom industry,” Bianca Tylek, the executive director of Worth Rises, said in a news release. Worth Rises is a nonprofit advocacy organization dedicated to dismantling the prison industry.

Some research suggests that incarcerated people who maintain consistent contact with loved ones are significantly more likely to succeed upon release and are less likely to reoffend.

The FCC’s latest decision comes months after New York joined California, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Minnesota in offering free phone calls in state prisons. Colorado’s policy won’t take full effect until 2026.

At least two states — Maryland and Missouri — considered legislation this year to make prison and jail calls more affordable. Maryland’s proposal to make calls free in state prisons did not pass, but Missouri enacted a law in August capping phone call rates at no more than 12 cents per minute in correctional centers.

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at ahernandez@stateline.org.

Green Bay Correctional Institution. (Photo by Andrew Kennard/Wisconsin Examiner)

When a prison built in the 1800s is still housing people in 2025 with the same aging infrastructure, we have to be honest, the system is broken. Wisconsin’s prisons have been in crisis for years, and for the first time in a long time, we’re seeing a small but important step toward change. 

Gov. Tony Evers recently received bipartisan approval to overhaul Wisconsin’s aging prison system and close the outdated Green Bay and Waupun prisons. The overhaul strategy includes a $15 million project investment and outlines a four-year process to reduce the number of beds, modernize facilities, and shift the focus toward rehabilitation and safety. That’s progress, but 2029 is too far away, and Evers’ plan lacks the kind of decarceration measures needed to actually reduce the prison population and make Wisconsin safer. 

The reality inside our prisons doesn’t have four years to wait. People are dying. Staff are exhausted. Families are breaking under the weight of a system that punishes more than it prepares people to come home. Every delay costs lives and wastes taxpayer dollars that could be used to help people rebuild instead of being locked away. 

I know this firsthand because I lived it. I spent part of my incarceration inside Green Bay Correctional Facility, one of the oldest and most overcrowded prisons in Wisconsin. The facility was built in 1898 with a design capacity of about 17,000 people statewide, yet Wisconsin’s prison population has hovered above 22,000 for years. That means thousands of people crammed into cells meant for far fewer. Walking those halls, you can feel the age of the place, the air thick with humidity, the bitter cold in winter, and the lack of ventilation that makes it hard to breathe. The walls are cracking, the infrastructure is failing, and the environment itself strips people of their dignity. 

Those conditions don’t make anyone safer. They don’t prepare people for reentry. They create desperation, both for both the incarcerated and the staff working inside. The best way to ensure a safer Wisconsin is to get the people who are ready to reenter society out of our prisons and into reentry. Overcrowded and understaffed prisons overtax our correctional officers and make prisons unsafe for officers and incarcerated people. In addition, understaffing makes it harder to ensure that everyone gets the programming that they need. The Federal First Step Act and CARES Act Home Confinement have both proved that bringing the right people back early can result in lower recidivism, better public safety and safer and more effective prisons. 

I was one of the many people affected by Wisconsin’s Truth in Sentencing law, which eliminated parole and early release. That law has kept countless people behind bars longer than necessary, removing the hope and incentive that parole once provided.

If Wisconsin wants to lead on justice reform, this can’t just be a construction project. Real reform means reducing the number of people behind bars, ending excessive revocations, expanding reentry programs, and investing in housing, treatment, and mental health care. It means giving people a path forward, not just warehousing. 

According to the Prison Policy Initiative, Wisconsin imprisons about 663 people per 100,000 residents, far more than Minnesota (173) or Illinois (341). Despite years of promises to reform, the state’s prison population has remained between 21,000 and 23,000 people for nearly two decades. 

Nearly 40% of new admissions each year come from revocations, not new crimes, meaning thousands are sent back to prison for breaking supervision rules like missing curfew, losing housing, or failing a drug test. That’s roughly 4,000 to 5,000 people every year, based on Department of Corrections data. I lead a statewide Smart Justice campaign focused on ending these excessive revocations, because it’s one of the biggest drivers of mass incarceration in Wisconsin. 

Add to that the worst racial disparity in the country. Black residents are imprisoned at 11 times the rate of white residents, according to the Sentencing Project, and it’s clear that our problem isn’t just old buildings. It’s old thinking. Reducing prison beds without changing these policies is like draining a bathtub while leaving the faucet running. Until we reform supervision, expand early release and invest in reentry and community support, the system will keep refilling itself. 

Closing prisons built in the 1800s is a step in the right direction, but it has to come with urgency and intention. We can’t keep reacting; we have to start transforming. The same energy that went into passing this plan must go into implementing it quickly and with input from the people most affected by it, those who have lived behind those walls, their families and the communities most affected by incarceration. 

As we head into a new election season, this issue must be front and center for every candidate running for governor. Wisconsin deserves leaders who will move us forward, not just talk about reform, but act on it. The next administration should be judged on whether it has the courage to close outdated prisons, expand second chances, and build a system rooted in rehabilitation, dignity, and justice. 

Gov. Evers was right when he said, “We’ve got to get this damned thing done.” But getting it done means more than moving money; it means moving with purpose. Justice reform isn’t about buildings; it’s about people. 

Wisconsin’s motto is Forward. It’s time for our justice system and our next governor to finally live up to that.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Surveillance cameras monitor traffic on a clear day | Getty Images Creative

The Greenfield Police Department has been engulfed in controversy since its chief was charged with felony misconduct in public office earlier this month. Chief Jay Johnson is accused of having a pole camera, owned and operated by the police department, installed at his Racine County home in late 2024. A 15-page criminal complaint states that Johnson put up the camera for personal use while he was in the process of divorcing his wife. 

The complaint also states that Johnson’s alleged personal use of the camera  violated the wishes and advice of Greenfield’s mayor, city attorney and members of the police department. In July, special agents from the Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ) Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) attended a meeting held at Greenfield City Hall to discuss a months-long investigation with city officials. 

According to the complaint, the special agents “were advised that during an internal investigation of Chief Johnson, which was conducted earlier in 2025, investigators uncovered actions they deemed as possibly criminal in nature. Outside agencies were later contacted to investigate potentially criminal violations committed by Chief Johnson.” 

Interviews with Greenfield’s human resources director, mayor, city attorney and police department staff turned up statements  that Johnson wanted to use a tax-payer funded, police department-owned pole camera at his home in Wind Lake because of  “safety concerns stemming from his divorce,” according to the complaint. Mayor Michael Neitzke said Johnson claimed to have been attempting to get a restraining order against his wife “in part because she was dating a felon,” the complaint states. Johnson claimed to have experienced harassment including a white rose being left in his driveway. The chief’s restraining order was denied, the complaint states, after which he asked the mayor about installing a pole camera. “Mayor Neitzke advised agents that he did not understand the type of camera Chief Johnson was talking about and believed it was equivalent to a trail camera or Verizon-type camera,” the complaint states. 

The mayor gave Johnson the go-ahead to install the camera, but later began to reconsider the decision. Neitzke contacted city attorney Christopher Geary, who said Johnson shouldn’t install the camera “citing legal issues with its use for personal reasons.” Geary then contacted Johnson stating that “his divorce is not related to his job,” the criminal complaint states. Johnson’s reaction was reputedly bombastic, “‘I think it’s f-ing ludicrous,’ was the exact quote,” Geary wrote in an email to the mayor. 

Johnson tried to argue that what he wanted was no different from the security former Gov. Scott Walker received during the Act 10 protests, and that a prior Greenfield police chief also had home security. “I tried to explain the difference is that the threats in those situations stemmed from the person’s public employment and/or public policy positions, whereas this is, as I understand it, an entirely personal situation,” Geary wrote in the same email, which is featured in the criminal complaint. “He didn’t appreciate the distinction.” 

The mayor said he thought that was where the issue ended, and that Johnson hadn’t installed the camera. In December 2024, however, Greenfield Police Department  Captain Chuck Fletcher was asked by Johnson about installing the pole cameras, according to the complaint. Fletcher told the DCI special agents that he had known Johnson his entire career and “considers him a close friend.” Fletcher stated that he also knew Johnson’s wife, and didn’t consider her to be an angry or violent person. Johnson allegedly told Fletcher that he wanted to keep the camera installation “low key” and discrete. Fletcher then assigned Detective Scott Simons to handle the installation, and told investigators that he did not know that the city attorney had advised against it. 

The complaint states that Fletcher communicated the chief’s desire to be “low key” and quick about things to Simons. The detective said he was asked to “change the password for logging onto the camera, as all pole cameras have a general username and password,” according to the complaint. “The camera that was to be installed at the Defendant’s residence would have a unique username and password.” Although Greenfield’s pole cameras are owned and monitored by the police department, they are installed by We Energies technicians. A camera was taken down “from a closed drug investigation,” according to the complaint. Simons told another detective that it was “being installed in another county for another investigation.” The camera was eventually installed across the street from the chief’s home. 

Some time later, Greenfield Police Association president and detective Aaron Busche “found out by accident” about the chief’s personal camera. Busche keeps track of the department’s four pole cameras, which are listed on a whiteboard by number and location. Busche realized that the camera at Johnson’s home had no documented location. “Detective Busche was told by Detective Scott Simons that the camera was loaned to an outside agency for their investigation,” the complaint states. “Detective Busche was not told what agency the camera was loaned to.”

 

Criminal Complaint_1 - Johnson, Jay A_ 2025CF005150_ Johnson, Jay A._28099053_1

 

In the spring of 2025, Busche heard that there was video feed from the mystery camera, but then realized he couldn’t log in because the password had been changed. Busche then used a “backdoor process” to access the camera feed, and realized it was the chief’s home. During a meeting with acting chief Eric Lindstrom, Simons was asked to take the camera down. 

Johnson is accused of violating Greenfield PD’s standards of conduct by using department equipment for personal gain, and omitting or even falsifying information given to staff who carried out the camera’s installation. The criminal complaint also accuses Johnson of threatening behavior towards law enforcement. In late August, it states, a person attempting to disguise their voice called the police department saying, “Hello you f-ing pigs, revenge is sweet!” The dispatcher and Busche both recognized the voice as Johnson’s. 

Acting Chief Lindstrom had also filed a complaint against Johnson with the Oak Creek Police Department, accusing Johnson of threats and harassment over Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram. One email copy says: “He’s on board, hold on tight!!!! Idiot and the ice princess will pay dearly. JJ DOJ is the man! Boom. God is good.” Another message says: “KL is on board. Friday meet with us. Ughhh. So unnecessary but he’s all in for me rn. HR and MN GOING DOWN!!!! EL is dirty so stay tuned. TY owe you!!!!” The criminal complaint states that “EL” is a reference to Eric Lindstrom who, like Busche, has also served on the Milwaukee-area team which investigates civilian deaths by police. 

The controversy raises questions about oversight of police surveillance technology, accountability for officers, and how problematic police officers climb the ranks. Community members in Milwaukee County have pushed for Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) local ordinances, which would provide more oversight and control of police surveillance tools.

Fox6 reported that a string of disciplinary issues going back to 2013 followed Chief Johnson. The news outlet obtained documents which described Johnson, who was a captain at the time, as having issues with “failing to own decisions and initiatives by administrative staff” or “engaging in inappropriate conversations with officers.” Johnson had been accused of sharing management-level discussions or information related to subordinates, and planning a “booze cruise” and other organized parties. 

A 2015 memo stated that “he can’t be allowed to supervise,” and in 2017 he signed a settlement to become Greenfield’s emergency management coordinator with the fire department, before becoming chief. Asked by Fox6 how Johnson became chief, Mayor Neitske redirected blame to the city’s Police and Fire Commission.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Lawmakers and community organizers gather outside the Milwaukee County Courthouse to announce a package of bills related to conditions inside prisons and jails. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

On Monday, a group of state and local lawmakers expected to see firsthand the conditions within the Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility (MSDF), a state-run facility imprisoning people for things like probation and parole violations. Lawmakers said the Department of Corrections (DOC) approved the tour, only to back out. It wasn’t the first time that elected officials have reported being denied tours of prisons and jails around the state, many of which continue to produce troubling accounts of the conditions inside their walls. 

“Let me be clear, the conditions in Wisconsin’s correctional facilities are not simply unfortunate,” said Rep. Darrin Madison (D-Milwaukee), standing with other elected officials and community organizers on the steps of the Milwaukee County Courthouse on Monday. “They are unacceptable…We are not going to normalize inhumanity.” 

Madison said that in some incarceration facilities, people may be locked in their cells for 20-23 hours a day for months. “They are denied sunlight,” said Madison. “They’re denied movement. They’re denied programming. They’re denied medical care. They’re denied basic human contact. There are facilities where people can’t even get consistent access to quality hygiene products. Where food is so poor, it does not meet the nutritional needs of grown adults…Where communication with family, the very thing that reduces recidivism, is treated like a privilege instead of a right.” 

Inhumane conditions in Wisconsin’s  jails and prisons, Madison said, is “state-sanctioned violence, and it’s being done in our name and disguised as justice.” Rather than creating spaces where rehabilitation can occur, Madison said, the Legislature has favored “choices related to punishment over rehabilitation, control over care, silence over accountability.” He stressed that “when you run a system on punishment and silence, abuse becomes the operating procedure.” 

That’s why Madison, alongside other elected officials and organizers from Ex-Incarcerated People Organizing (EXPO) and the Milwaukee Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, gathered outside the courthouse in Milwaukee to announce a package of bills aimed at improving conditions in prisons and jails. The bills would accomplish a number of things including:

• Guaranteeing 180 free minutes of telephone access, 60 minutes of free video calling, and 100 free messages per week to incarcerated people. In-person visits would also not be replaced with video or phone calls, 
• Increase wages to incarcerated people to at least $2.33 per hour. In  Wisconsin most incarcerated people are paid anywhere from nothing to 40 cents per hour, 
• Guaranteeing at least four bathing periods for people incarcerated in  state and county facilities, 
• Providing culturally sensitive products and a $25 a month stipend to help pay for them, female hygiene supplies, and other grooming and hygiene products, 
• Guaranteeing up to two in-person visits a week, and allowing incarcerated people to have up to 25 registered visitors who may embrace them for up to 20 seconds before and after visits, 
• Requiring that all state and county correctional facilities provide recreational activities, as well as organized and structured programming,
• Ensuring that people placed in solitary confinement are given a book, pen or pencil, paper, envelopes, hygiene products, a personal address book, and other supplies within two hours of being placed in restrictive housing, requiring structured programming while in solitary confinement, guaranteeing access to case managers, and providing three 25-minute video visitation periods per week, 
• Ensuring that housing units are kept at 68-76 degrees Fahrenheit, 
• Granting incarcerated people the ability to see the outdoors at least three hours daily, and the ability to be outside and up to three hours a week, 
• Creating a public dashboard with status on solitary confinement, prison lockdowns, and complaints, 
• Ensuring that lawmakers are able to access prisons and jails for oversight purposes, 
• Allowing counties to oversee control of a jail if lawmakers vote to do so, 
• And requiring jails and prisons to provide written documents to incarcerated people detailing their rights, and ensuring the document can be viewed and accessed throughout any correctional facility. 

Justin Bielinski, a Milwaukee County supervisor and chair of the Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and General Services Committee, quoted the adage that with great power comes great responsibility and added, “our carceral system is the ultimate power, depriving people of their freedom.” Bielinski said she  fears that “we’re not holding up our end of the bargain and our responsibility to keep people safe and free from harm.” 

Meanwhile, Milwaukee County is running out of space in the jail and Community Reintegration Center (CRC). “So it’s more important than ever that the conditions inside these facilities are the best that we can make them so that when people come out, they are not worse, that they are at least the same, if not better.” Bielinksi said. She added, “The Sheriff’s Office has been resistant to every attempt that we’ve made to offer change, offer oversight within the jail.” Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee), who was also in attendance on Monday, said he has also battled the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office to visit the jail and improve conditions there.

Although the county board can pass resolutions, they are not binding and do not usurp the authority the sheriff has over the jail. “We cannot force change inside of that facility,” said Bielinski. “And so we do need state legislation to help us out with that…We know these things are going to cost money, but we cannot let money be the excuse for treating people in a way that is less than human. And if we can’t find the money, then we shouldn’t be locking this many people up.” 

Bielinksi recalled the string of deaths inside the Milwaukee County Jail from 2021 to 2022, which led to a third-party audit of the jail. Yet in that audit, Bielinksi said, the county didn’t address the specific circumstances that led to the deaths. Among the people who died were 21-year-old Brieon Green and 20-year-old Cilivea Thyrion, whose deaths were both ruled suicides despite  their families’ insistence that jail staff were at the very least negligent in their care. Green and Thyrion’s loved ones joined local activists in calling for reform to the jail and sheriff’s office. 

December will mark three years since Thyrion died. Kayla Patterson, a member of the Milwaukee Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, highlighted the deaths and riots at the jail in recent years. “And we will continue to see that until the sheriff and her office are held accountable,” said Patterson. “This legislative pack should represent one of the first steps in standing with the people of Milwaukee for jail oversight that works with them, and not against them. For real transparency input into how our loved ones are kept while in custody. In the Alliance there’s a slogan we use: ‘In your custody, in your care.’ These are not just inmates, but community members that deserve dignity 24-7 during their time in the jail.” 

Conditions within state prisons have also been under the microscope. Last year, the warden of Waupun Correctional and eight other staff members were charged with crimes related to the treatment and neglect of people within the prison, which may have contributed to a string of four deaths from 2023 to 2024. 

The deaths included Dean Hoffmann, ruled suicide by hanging, Tyshun Lemons who overdosed on a substance containing fentanyl, Cameron Williams who complained of breathing issues and was found unresponsive in his bed, and Donald Maier, who died while in solitary confinement of dehydration and malnutrition. Water to his cell had been shut off, and correctional officers allegedly knew that Maier’s mental condition was worsening, that he had not eaten for days, and had begun drinking sewage water. In 2025, Waupun warden Randall Hepp was convicted of a misdemeanor in Maier’s death, and fined $500. Hepp pleaded no contest. 

The DOC didn’t respond to a request for comment, and the story will be updated with any reply from them. 

Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee) said at the press conference, “We invest, as a state, millions of dollars in folks who are in our care. And they should be coming out on a trajectory of success to make sure that they are finding a job, finding a community, and the only time they think about their time incarcerated is in the rear view mirror, in the past tense. Unfortunately, the way that we have this set up is a broken ‘tough on crime’ idea that once you touch the criminal justice system it is cruel to you, it diminishes you, and it never lets you go.” 

Androne Lane has experienced the struggles Larson described. He came home in 2018 after spending time in several prisons including Waupun, Green Bay, Red Granite and  Fox Lake. “I think it was important for me to come out and speak today because being a returning citizen, this bill or this movement that these guys are pushing to me is like a basic, like our own constitution for returning citizens,” Lane told the Wisconsin Examiner. “We’re not asking for a lot, we’re asking for dignity. We’re asking for humanity.” 

The priorities outlined in the bill package cover things that would help incarcerated people heal and become whole, Lane said. When people return home from prison, Lane continued, “How do you get a community to accept them coming back in there? And what does that look like for encouraging the community or an individual coming back to recover something that wasn’t replaced?” 

Lane and other advocates say there needs to be a “community care plan” for people returning home from incarceration. When Lane returned home, he told the  Examiner, it took a while for him to accept that he needed mental health therapy. “I think one of the hardest things for individuals is to ask for help, not knowing what help you need,” he said. “When I came home there was a lot of things that was on the surface that I had to deal with. But there was a lot of things inside that I didn’t know I was dealing with.” On the surface, Lane was unemployed and deeply stressed, but on the inside he was struggling with the trauma of being molested as a child, and he didn’t know how he’d be accepted in the community. “What does mental health look like for us? What does wellness look like …and what is this ‘whole’ that everybody is working for?” 

Rep. Margaret Arney (D-Wauwatosa), said the bills embody important work for Wisconsin to take on. “I hate living in a state where we lock up so many people and have so little regard for how those people live their lives,” Arney told the Examiner. “It’s a heartbreaking, enraging type of situation…When I look around and say, ‘What’s as bad as slavery was?’ And I think of the conditions of incarceration in the state of Wisconsin. That us as the United States, we’re addicted to locking people up, and in Wisconsin we do it even more so and even worse than in other states. And even though it costs a tremendous amount of resources, there’s so little willingness to engage in what those resources are here for, what we’re doing. Why does it cost so much to treat people so badly? Why do we, everyday, just put up with the fact that we’re somewhere on the order of 5,000 people over capacity?” 

Although “conditions of confinement” sounds like a “sterile” term to Arney, she said,  it’s not. “It’s human beings that are being treated at torture-level conditions, and I just can’t stand that.” 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A bipartisan bill in the Wisconsin legislature would impose mandatory minimum sentences on people convicted of human trafficking. Advocates worry the penalty could be applied to victims.Close up shot of fingerprint paper | Getty Images

A bill that would require judges to sentence people convicted of human trafficking to at least 10 years in prison, or at least 15 years for trafficking a child, is advancing through the Wisconsin Legislature.  

Human trafficking involves the use of force, fraud or coercion for labor, services or commercial sex acts. Trafficking of a child includes knowingly attempting to recruit a child for commercial sex acts. The bill would also increase the maximum prison time a person can receive for trafficking. 

Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) wrote that the bill “will continue to put a dent in human trafficking in Wisconsin.” Rep. Jerry O’Connor (R-Fond Du Lac) listed five cases in which, he wrote, a person convicted of sex trafficking received between six and eight years in prison. It appeared that the cases took place in states other than Wisconsin. 

“AB 265 ensures that these soft-on-trafficking policies never happen in Wisconsin,” O’Connor wrote. He argued that the bill’s mandatory minimums ensure adequate punishment and prevent offenders from doing further harm. 

The criminal justice advocacy group Ex-Incarcerated People Organizing (EXPO) and the president of the Wisconsin Justice Initiative oppose the mandatory minimums, arguing that there is a lack of evidence they will be effective at reducing trafficking. EXPO argues in an email to the Wisconsin Examiner that mandatory minimums risk unintended harmful consequences and resources are better spent on areas such as prevention and victim services.  

The LOTUS Legal Clinic in Milwaukee, which works with survivors of human trafficking, expressed concern in a written comment submitted on the Senate version of the bill in September. Executive Director Erika Petty wrote that many of LOTUS’s clients might support the mandatory minimum in principle, but expressed concern about unintended consequences for trafficking victims. 

“Traffickers commonly shield themselves from criminal accountability by forcing their victims — often at a very young age — to post ads, recruit new trafficking victims, and facilitate encounters,” Petty wrote in her comment, which was brought up in the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety. “Thus, the victims themselves become vulnerable to criminal prosecution for human trafficking.”

The bill’s mandatory minimums would apply if a person is convicted of human or child trafficking in adult court, Amber Otis, senior staff attorney with the Wisconsin Legislative Council, wrote in a message to lawmakers on the committee.

Petty argued that under the bill, a victim forced to participate in trafficking of others would fall under the mandatory minimum, just like their trafficker. She provided language for lawmakers to consider; if added to the bill, it would create exceptions to the mandatory minimums that would give judges the ability to hand down lighter sentences or probation to people who offer evidence that their offense is the direct result of a violation of the trafficking statutes.

A 2017 Northwestern University Law Review article made a suggestion in the same vein as Petty’s, proposing that Congress create a “safety valve” for “lead prostitutes,” or “bottoms,” who are both victims and perpetrators of trafficking, to allow them to receive a sentence lighter than a mandatory minimum if certain criteria were met. An article in Anti-Trafficking Review describes a case where a woman named Keosha Jones was both perpetrator and victim of sex trafficking.

Petty wrote that LOTUS attorneys currently had multiple cases involving convicted survivors. The clinic doesn’t handle criminal defense, but LOTUS can work with survivors on their rights as crime victims and see if they can alleviate a survivor’s criminal record, Petty told the Examiner in an interview. A survivor may have a criminal record as a result of trafficking that creates barriers to gainful employment and safe housing. 

While the bill was introduced by Republicans, the Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety approved it unanimously, and Minority Caucus Chair Lisa Subeck (D-Madison) and Rep. Shelia Stubbs (D-Madison) have been added as coauthors. It has since passed the Assembly. 

The Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety approved the Senate bill along party lines, with the committee’s three Democrats voting against. 

People convicted of benefiting from human trafficking or receiving compensation from the earnings of debt bondage, the prostitution of others or a commercial sex act would also receive a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years, or 15 years for benefiting from child trafficking. 

The bill would also increase the amount of prison time a judge could hand down for trafficking and give prosecutors a longer window to charge someone with human trafficking. 

Victims have a defense in court, but concerns remain

The Examiner reached out to Sen. Wanggaard in September about LOTUS’s comment and suggested amendment. Wanggaard aide Scott Kelly said that “we do not believe an amendment is necessary.” 

If a trafficking victim commits a crime as a “direct result” of a violation of human trafficking law, the victim can use an affirmative defense in court. Kelly referenced the affirmative defense and the 2022 Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling in State v. Kizer, which involved a woman who killed a man prosecutors admitted had sexually abused her. 

The court held that an offense is committed as a direct result of a violation of the human trafficking statutes if there is “a logical, causal connection” between the offense and the trafficking. Other events or considerations must not have played a significant role in causing the offense. 

If a victim is charged and convicted of trafficking, that would mean the victim did not successfully assert the defense, Otis wrote. This could occur if the prosecutor proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not meet the elements of the defense. 

Even with the affirmative defense, Assistant State Public Defender Katie York of the Wisconsin State Public Defenders Office told the Examiner that she thinks the bill puts trafficking survivors at risk. 

York opposes the human trafficking mandatory minimum in general, and said it takes away the opportunity for prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges to evaluate each case based on individual circumstances. York said she thinks judges are well equipped to make decisions and she doesn’t believe that this area of the law needs more specific parameters. 

York said how well the defense can be used to protect a trafficking victim is “largely untested at this point.” 

Also, if there is a situation where a jury doesn’t think the defendant meets the “direct result” standard for the affirmative defense, the trafficking still might have been a contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the offense, York said. A judge could take that into account. 

“So they could be found guilty of trafficking, even if they tried the affirmative defense,” York said. “But, if the judge is looking at the full picture when they’re sentencing someone, which is what judges do, they would want to take into consideration how that person got involved in the trafficking.”

If a person got involved in trafficking because they were originally trafficked themselves, that would be an important factor for the sentencing judge, York said. 

A person might have some culpability, without having as much culpability as whoever drew them in or forced them into human trafficking, said Sarah Schmeiser, president of the Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. 

Schmeiser said prosecutors use mandatory minimums to force plea deals, as someone charged with a crime that carries a mandatory minimum sentence has an incentive to plead guilty to a lower charge with a lower penalty instead of risking the mandatory minimum sentence at trial. 

York thinks traffickers could use the mandatory minimum as a tool to further coerce their victims.

“So if… they say, ‘Hey, I need you to post this on Backpage,’ or ‘I need you to talk to this girl for me,’ or whatever it is to bring them into the trafficking, they’re putting that person at risk of criminal liability,” York said. “And then the trafficker can say, ‘And, now you better be careful and listen to what I have to say, because otherwise, you’re going to get in trouble with law enforcement and you’re going to go to prison for 10 years,’ or whatever the mandatory minimum is.”

Increased penalties 

Under the bill, someone convicted of committing or benefitting from human trafficking would be guilty of a Class C felony, which carries up to 25 years in prison. Receiving compensation from the earnings of debt bondage, a prostitute or a commercial sex act would become a Class E felony, which carries up to 10 years in prison. The mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison would apply to all human trafficking offenses.

Committing or benefitting from child trafficking would become a Class B felony, which carries up to 40 years in prison. Child trafficking offenses would carry the 15-year mandatory minimum. 

More time to prosecute

The bill would also increase the statute of limitations for human trafficking from six years to 10 years, allowing more time for prosecution. During an Assembly hearing, Investigator Luke Johnson of the Racine County Sheriff’s Office said many human trafficking victims struggle to leave their traffickers. 

“It is very easy for victims to be trapped in a life for many years before having a chance to get out or feeling comfortable enough to disclose to law enforcement or anyone else,” Johnson said. 

Of the human trafficking charges filed under the state law between 2018 and 2023, so far 14 charges have led to convictions, according to Wisconsin Court System data. For trafficking of a child, so far, 32 charges have led to convictions. This does not represent the number of people convicted, as a person can be charged more than once in a case. Charges of benefiting from human or child trafficking were less frequent. 

The National Human Trafficking Hotline reports it has identified 1,117 cases of human trafficking in Wisconsin since 2007, with 2,212 victims identified in those cases. There were 445 allegations of child sex trafficking across Wisconsin in 2021.

“It is imperative to note that in this underworld of crime, there are far more cases that are not reported to law enforcement,” Rep. Jerry O’Connor wrote in a comment on the bill. 

Burden of proof 

Senators discussed LOTUS’s comment during a hearing of the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety in September, with Sen. Dora Drake (D-Milwaukee) raising concern about charging and criminalizing victims. 

Committee chair and Sen. Van Wanggaard said he thinks investigators understand that a person might be coerced to participate in human trafficking. 

Otis’s email to the Senate committee noted that the district attorney has discretion over whether and how to charge someone with trafficking depending on the situation. 

It’s difficult to prove whether someone is a victim of human trafficking, York said. She added that the victim may not identify as a victim of trafficking, and may view their trafficker as a boyfriend or someone they relied on. 

“It’s a challenge to kind of go back and unpack years worth of trauma and history to say, ‘OK, this is what originally happened, and this is how we got to where we are,” York said. 

At times, a plea deal may work out better for the individual than using the affirmative defense, York said, due to the mental toll the defendant would experience from going in front of a jury and speaking about what happened to them. A mandatory minimum limits the ability to negotiate for the client, she said. 

Erika Petty of LOTUS suggested there could be a situation where someone is not ready to identify as a victim of trafficking at the trial stage, but the situation changes by the time of sentencing. 

Petty referenced a law that allows a person convicted of prostitution to submit a motion for a court to overturn their conviction if certain criteria are met, including that the person was a victim of trafficking for the purposes of a commercial sex act. Human trafficking convictions aren’t covered. 

Potentially, a survivor could appeal a decision, Petty said, but “those are all very specific, and have to align with timing and whatever underlying issue wanted to be appealed.”

Whose expertise informed the bill? 

Shortly before the Assembly voted on the bill, Rep. Robert Wittke (R-Caledonia) said the bill came to lawmakers from Investigator Luke Johnson. Johnson’s comments state that from 2023 to earlier this year, he had an opportunity to serve on a task force specifically targeting human trafficking and internet crimes against children. 

“I urge any of you that have any trepidation with this bill to sit down with those in the front line that actually do this work and actually see this firsthand,” Wittke said. 

During the hearing in the Senate in September, Drake asked Wanggaard and Wittke if they had reached out to any groups or partners that work with victims of human trafficking outside of law enforcement for input. 

Wanggaard said he didn’t know of any group recently that they talked with specifically about this draft, but said that “we have [done so] for most of the content in this draft.” He said he thinks law enforcement was probably the most vocal “because they’re seeing the same people out there, continuing to reoffend.”

Wittke said he didn’t go to any other groups and that “this came specifically from sitting down with Inspector Johnson.” 

Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee) expressed concern about “only talking to one entity, and that is law enforcement, and we know that not all of our law enforcement officers have the tools necessary to decipher who those victims are.” 

The bill received support from the Wisconsin Sheriffs and Deputy Sheriffs Association and other law enforcement groups, as well as the nonprofit United Migrant Opportunity Services (UMOS). UMOS’s Latina Resource Center operates the Wisconsin Regional Anti-Human Trafficking Program, which helps victims of labor and sex trafficking. UMOS did not respond to requests for comment. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A bipartisan bill in the Wisconsin Legislature would launch a pilot project to provide health care and substance abuse recovery services to incarcerated people before and after release.(Photo by Caspar Benson/Getty Images)

This story has been updated to reflect the fact that the proposed bill would cover general health care needs in addition to substance use disorders

“When people don’t receive support, they tend to go back to what they knew,” Tom Denk, who was released from state prison in 2022, told the Wisconsin Examiner.

In an email, Denk said that he has experienced incarceration for a substance use issue and has had many friends who have had similar experiences. 

“One of my best friends was in prison with me,” Denk said. “It was his tenth time in prison — all for substance use issues. However, after he was released, this last time, he died from an overdose.”

Denk said he would like to see wrap-around services extended to include all prisoners. However, he supports a bipartisan effort in the Wisconsin Legislature to request a specific type of waiver of federal Medicaid law for a state demonstration project to provide eligible incarcerated people with up to 90 days of prerelease health care coverage. 

The coverage would include case management services, medication-assisted treatment for all types of substance use disorders and a 30-day supply of all prescription medications, which are the minimum benefits a state is expected to propose in its application. . There are 19 other states that have approved waivers, while nine, including D.C., are pending. 

In 2023, the Biden administration put out guidance encouraging states to test strategies to support the re-entry of incarcerated people into communities, according to the health policy research organization KFF.

While Medicaid is prohibited from paying for non-inpatient services provided during incarceration, states can apply for a partial waiver of that policy.

A bill in the Wisconsin Legislature, AB 604, would require the Wisconsin Department of Health Services to request the waiver from the federal government. Incarcerated people who would receive coverage must be otherwise eligible for coverage under the Medical Assistance program. It will receive a hearing Tuesday afternoon in the Assembly Committee on Mental Health and Substance Abuse Prevention. Its senate counterpart, SB 598, has been referred to the Committee on Health.  

In a press release, Sen. Sarah Keyeski (D-Lodi) said the bill would offer a way to reduce state and local health care costs for individuals with substance use disorders who are already eligible for Medicaid and are incarcerated in state prisons or county jails. 

The 2023 guidance states that the goal is not to allow prison authorities to transfer costs of providing needed prisoner health care to the Medicaid program. States have to reinvest federal matching funds received for carceral health care services currently funded with state or local dollars, according to a KFF publication last year.

Reinvested money must go toward activities that increase access or improve the quality of health care services for people who are incarcerated or were recently released, or for health-related social services that may help divert people released from incarceration from involvement in the criminal justice system, according to KFF.

Keyeski said the bill would also enhance access to care after release. 

“If we can initiate treatment for more individuals struggling with substance use disorders while they are incarcerated, we can both improve health outcomes once they are released back into their communities and lower rates of recidivism,” Keyeski said. 

Denk said that upon release, he had to search for a new provider, which “got more and more difficult to do.” He said that “case management would help with this issue — and reduce stressors that cause people to use substances.”

Support from lawmakers of both parties, activists 

Sen. Jesse James (R-Thorp) and Rep. Clint Moses (R-Menomonie) are among the bipartisan group of lawmakers who introduced or cosponsored AB 604.

James is the chair of the Senate Committee on Mental Health, Substance Abuse Prevention, and Children and Families, while Moses is chair of the Assembly Committee on Health, Aging and Long-Term Care. Sen. Howard Marklein, co-chair of the Joint Committee on Finance, is another cosponsor. 

“This bill is about saving lives and giving people coming out of the criminal justice system the best chance of recovery and reintegration into their communities,” James said in an emailed statement. 

The statement cited a North Carolina study of opioid overdose death rates between 2000 and 2015, which concluded that people released from prison are highly vulnerable to opioids and need urgent prevention measures. 

“When treatment begins pre-release and is maintained throughout reentry, we will see meaningful improvement in health outcomes,” James said.

Moses said in a statement that the bill will help give incarcerated individuals a positive start in a transitional phase in their lives, and would also reduce costs for local governments. 

The criminal justice reform advocacy groups EX-Incarcarated People Organizing (EXPO) and WISDOM expressed support for the legislation in statements to the Examiner. 

“For too long, people leaving incarceration have faced dangerous gaps in healthcare coverage — especially those living with substance use disorders,” EXPO stated. 

The legislation “recognizes what we see every day in our work,” according to the organization, “that people returning home are far more likely to succeed when their health and basic needs are supported from the start.”

In an email to the Examiner, Mark Rice of WISDOM said that many formerly and currently incarcerated people are struggling with poverty, mental illness and addiction. He said that “far too many people” detained in prisons and jails are needlessly dying and suffering due to health issues that could be fixed through increased access to care during and after incarceration. 

“The system must be fundamentally transformed so that health is prioritized over punishment,” Rice said. 

Under the bill, the Department of Health Services would submit the request for a waiver by Jan. 1, 2027. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Credit: Richard Theis/EyeEm/Getty

In Wisconsin, the last time there was a commutation — a reduction of a criminal sentence by the governor’s authority to grant clemency — it was during Republican Tommy Thompson’s administration (1987-2001). Thompson issued seven commutations in addition to 202 pardons.

Subsequently, with the exception of  former  Republican Gov. Scott Walker, who served from 2011 to 2019, governors have offered hundreds of pardons.

Gov. Tony Evers set a record for the number of pardons he’s offered during his seven years in office at 1,640.

However, like his fellow Democratic Gov. James Doyle, who issued 326 pardons, Evers has not issued any commutations.

Members of WISDOM, a non-profit faith-based organization that works to end mass incarceration, say Evers told them in 2023  that he would begin issuing commutations.

However, Evers has never made an official statement on his position concerning commutations. He did not respond to a request for a comment on the matter from the Wisconsin Examiner.

Evers ran for office promising to reduce Wisconsin’s prison population. After a dip during the COVID-19 pandemic, the prison population is experiencing an upswing. There were 23,495 people in prison in Wisconsin as of Sept. 26, compared with 23,292 when Evers took office on Jan. 7, 2019. Nearly every prison in the state reports a population exceeding the facility’s official capacity.

Criminal justice advocacy groups like WISDOM and Ex-incarcerated People Organizing (EXPO) of Wisconsin have noted that one way Evers could address the prison population is by offering commutations, especially for those who have served long sentences and have proven to be low risks to return to society.

In 2023, Beverly Walker of WISDOM led a team that included legal scholars to study how commutations were conducted in neighboring states and prepared a proposal for how Wisconsin could begin implementing commutations again.

“We wanted to offer [Evers’] legal team something that could be advanced and not be a hindrance that they could move forward with and be implemented,” said Walker.

Walker said the proposal had two components:

1.     The commutation would make the resident eligible for parole, with a parole board considering the application and making a recommendation.
2.     The governor could issue a direct commutation resulting in a shortened sentence, including possible release from prison.

“We said if you are uncomfortable releasing people from prison, we ask that you just make them eligible for parole,” said Walker.  “Allow them to go before the parole board, and the parole board make the decision on their eligibility based on what they see.”

“A lot of these people will never see the light of day without a commutation,” she said. “But a lot of these people have done college, gotten degrees, have been doing amazing work inside prison, and some have even been allowed to work outside of the fence and are just doing great, exhibiting great behaviour. They have transformative stories, and they have proved that they have put in the work.”

Walker’s team is asking Evers to consider commuting the sentences of people serving long-term sentences in prison whom the group identified for their good behavior and good prospects for release. In anticipation of release, Walker’s team also researched the availability of work opportunities, housing and even resources such as food pantries.

Commutation candidates

In response to a request from the  Examiner for  information on the candidates, Walker said her team decided not to release their names for fear of damaging their chances. WISDOM’s Sherry Reames, a retired University of Wisconsin-Madison English professor and volunteer on the commutations committee, offered a general description of all the present candidates for commutation. 

According to Reames, most of the candidates were convicted of a serious crime, mostly first-degree intentional homicide (either alone as party to a crime) in the 1990s when they were young men, between 20 and 22.

Most the candidates were sentenced to decades in prison and will not be eligible for parole until the 2040s.

“Historically a life sentence in Wisconsin had allowed for the possibility of parole after about 15 years, a length of time which the Sentencing Project and other authorities have determined is about long enough to punish most crimes, especially by young offenders,” said Reames, “but it was the ‘tough on crime’ 1990s when our commutation candidates were convicted.”

Walker also said the candidates have used their years in prison to change their lives.

“Some of them initially had a hard time adjusting to the prison rules, but they have matured into model citizens, who lead and train other workers and earn positive reviews from staff,” said Reames. “Some have been continuously employed by Badger State Industries (now BSE) for a decade or more at a time, while others have rotated through the whole gamut of prison jobs (kitchen, laundry, custodial, library, clerk, maintenance, tier tender, etc., etc.). What they all have in common, however, are their obvious work ethic and self-discipline.”

Reames also said some candidates have obtained their high school degrees in prison and then certification as electricians, barbers, carpenters, bakers or building-service managers. 

Some have also earned college credits from four-year universities, she said.

“Several have completed Trinity International University’s whole four-year degree program in Biblical studies with a minor in psychology, laying the foundation for careers as pastors and counselors,” said Reames, “and others have completed the necessary training to assist younger prisoners as certified peer mentors and tutors.”

Some also participated in Restorative Justice and Victim Impact programs.

Post announcement

When Evers announced this summer that he wasn’t going to run for another term, advocates expressed renewed interest in pressing him for commutations before he leaves office.

Walker told the Wisconsin Examiner that her group is engaged in an ongoing dialogue with the governor’s legal staff. In September, while acknowledging gratitude for all the pardons Evers has issued, Walker also expressed frustration over the lack of action on commutations.

“I am challenging him (Evers) to uphold these things that he has said,” said Walker. “He made these campaign promises that he was going to reduce the prison population, that he was going to do all these things as it pertains to people incarcerated and that included commutations, and it has been over two years and I don’t want to be disappointed, and at what point will I be able to be proud of this man that I elected?”

At the end of October, however, Walker was more upbeat about the possibility of a commutation: “It does look promising,” she said.

Marianne Oleson, operations director for EXPO, said her advocacy group also sees a window of opportunity in Evers’ last year in office and has also discussed commutations with the governor’s office and with legislators and their aides.

“Whenever we have the opportunity, we put out eblast constantly; we put out social media, “ said Oleson.

“We have individuals who are currently incarcerated, who have been incarcerated for decades, who have zero infractions (disciplinary reports generated within prisons) that have gone over and beyond, done everything that has been asked of them to do,” she added. “ … they’re caught in this loop because of Truth in Sentencing. If they’re not going to be paroled, give them a commutation. And then there’s individuals who have life sentences that were really, quite frankly, only due to being party to a crime where these individuals were very young at the time, and their situations deserve at least to be considered and looked at.”

Truth in Sentencing is a tough-on-crime policy from the 1990s that, in  Wisconsin, requires a mandatory period of prison time be served before release, with no discretion given to a parole board that in previous years had the authority to review the status of prisoners and could authorize early release.

The reality today for those sentenced after Dec. 31, 1999, when Truth in Sentencing  took effect, is that the possibility of early release has become very remote. 

A commutation by the governor would be one legal way to shorten the confinement and extended supervision for both those sentenced before and after Truth in Sentencing was implemented.

However, in Wisconsin, there is currently no process for applying for a commutation.

There is a process to apply for a pardon through the Governor’s Pardon Advisory Board, but it requires that the sentence of confinement and extended supervision have been fulfilled, followed by a five-year period of a clear record. If one meets the condition for a pardon in Wisconsin, there is no need for a commutation because the sentence has been fully served.

“When I have approached the governor’s office to even discuss commutations, I’m automatically referred to the pardon application,” said Oleson. “You are comparing apples to oranges. A pardon eliminates the conviction, a blank slate; a commutation maintains the conviction, maintains the accountability, but says you’ve served enough time. You no longer should be serving decades or years longer. You have proven you have served enough time. You still hold the conviction, but you are not chained to the DOC.”

Other voices for commutation

The ACLU of Wisconsin is encouraging Evers to exercise his authority to offer commutations in Wisconsin.

“For decades, commutations have been vastly underutilized at the state level,” said David Gwidt, deputy communication director. “Commuting sentences has gone from a relatively routine practice historically to an exceedingly rare one since the rise of mass incarceration, as governors on both sides of the aisle are reluctant to commute sentences out of fear they will be labeled as ‘soft on crime’ for doing so. But that’s starting to change in other states.”

Governors in New Jersey, Oregon, California, Alabama, and Oklahoma, have all used their commutation authority in recent years, Gwidt added.  “Commutation is a tool that can help decarcerate our overpopulated prisons, rectify unjust, wrongful or excessively long sentences, and offer incarcerated people a pathway to redemption,” he said. “We hope Gov. Evers uses his remaining time in office as an opportunity to grant commutation and clemency to those who earn a chance at freedom.” 

Speaking as a member of a panel discussion on solitary confinement and conditions inside Wisconsin prisons,  on Sunday, Oct. 12 in Madison, state Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison), a  candidate for governor, said commutations should be used for those who have been incarcerated for decades and are no longer a threat to society.

“Just in general, I think the clemency powers have been very underutilized in Wisconsin,” she said. “We have people who have been incarcerated for decades and decades. People age out of crime… and now you have people, some of whom have terminal and chronic illnesses. They are in their 60s, their 70s, their 80s, and they could easily and very safely live back with their loved ones after many decades of incarceration. And yet they are being denied this and then state taxpayers are being asked to essentially fund their incarceration and their health care.”

National discussion

In a July 13, 2025 op-ed in the New York Times, “Governors, Use Your Clemency Power,” CUNY law professor Steven Zeidman wrote:  

“President Trump is making shameless use of his constitutional clemency power, rewarding insurrectionists, cronies, campaign contributors and sundry others. But this is not the only problem. Mr. Trump’s acts of commission are paralleled by American governors’ acts of omission. Even though they control the bulk of the country’s prison population and typically have the power to grant clemency, many governors have consistently failed to exercise the power of forgiveness, to all of our detriment.”

Zeidman notes that of the two million people currently in confinement in the United States, most are in state prisons, under the authority of governors.

Zeidman, who has pursued over 100 commutations in New York and won 21, talked to the Wisconsin Examiner about the reluctance he sees in governors to exercise their constitutional authority.

Addressing the perception of being soft on crime, Zeidman said it might be easier for Republicans who have established a tough-on-crime posture to offer commutation. That might be why the last commutation in Wisconsin was under Thompson, a tough-on-crime Republican.

According to a  2023 report, “Executive Clemency Power in Wisconsin” by Jillian Slaight for the Legislative Reference Bureau, Thompson commuted the sentence of seven people serving parole, stating, “further supervision would serve no useful purpose.”

The same report found that Gov. Patrick Lucey, a Democrat who served from 1971 to 1977  issued 177 commutations, including one to a man who had failed to provide child support. Lucey stated that sending the man back to prison prevented him from working and providing support.

Democratic Gov. Gaylord Nelson, who served from 1959 to 1963, issued 27 commutations for people he considered “rehabilitated.”

Cautionary tales vs. data

Zeidman and others who advocate for commutations argue that those eligible for commutation should undergo rigorous screening, including having members of the victims’ families and the district attorney participate in the commutation process.

“There should be a real careful vetting process,” he says, adding, “I would say to Wisconsin, have a very careful vetting process, go over it with a fine-tooth comb, and at the end of the day, it’s not going to be none (who are eligible for commutation) and it’s not going to be thousands either.”

Zeidman and the advocates say reincarceration rates are low for those who have served long sentences.

The Wisconsin DOC’s data on reincarceration shows a notable decrease for those who have served five years or more in prison.

A study prepared for the New York City Council in 2023 called “Justice on Aging” also noted older residents in prison tend not to return: “Nationwide, 43.3 percent of all released individuals recidivate within three years, while only seven percent of those aged 50-64 and four percent over 65 return to prison for new convictions—the lowest rates among all incarcerated age demographics.”

 “It’s a fact, people age out of crime,” Zeidman says. 

Another argument for restoring the possibility of early release is that rewarding good behaviour with commutations motivates more good behavior in prison. 

“Give people an incentive to improve themselves and get on with their lives,” says Tom Denk, an advocate for WISDOM who has served time in prison. 

“It does seem that too many governors are thinking about clemency and commutation in particular as a political act instead of an act of mercy or grace,” says Jennifer Soble, executive director of the Illinois Prison Project, who represents clients in Illinois who have a case for early release.  “And so they are shying away from commutations on the statistically very unlikely event that a commutation could end up harming them politically, and that’s a real tragedy, because we are talking about real human beings who are living their lives in prison, many of whom are doing so under the extraordinarily unjust circumstances.”

Soble says many in Illinois prisons received long sentences, even life sentences, under older laws, but if processed today, their sentences would not be as extreme.

As an example of how laws have changed in Illinois, she says, formerly, any death resulting during a pursuit of a crime by law enforcement, such as the police chasing a suspect and firing a weapon, killing an innocent person, could result in murder charges to the suspect being pursued, even if the suspect had not directly participated in the death.

“And the only way for those folks to get out is through clemency and there’s no other path,” she says, “and so although I understand political caution, especially in these very challenging times, that caution cannot come at the expense of a person’s entire life.”

Zeidman also notes there is movement across the country to take a second look at sentences. In Wisconsin, a bill that stalled in 2024 would review the life sentences without parole for those who were convicted while they were under 18 years of age but were prosecuted as adults.

“The prison system is intentionally sort of secreted away,” says Soble.  “Incarcerated people are not visible on purpose. And so your average person walking down the street is not thinking about, you know, is there or is there not a reasonably plausible way for an incarcerated person who shouldn’t be in prison to come home?”

Before he left office, President Joe Biden issued one of the largest commutations of all time for 2,500 people in the federal Bureau of Prisons system who had committed non-violent crimes.

“The recidivism rate of that group has been extraordinarily low,” says Soble of the 2,500 Biden commuted. “That effort saved taxpayer dollars. It made good sense. It was a good policy decision. It was also a just and humane decision, but governors at the state level have been just pretty unwilling to follow suit, even in cases that feel very, very obvious.”

Criminal Justice Fellow  Andrew Kennard contributed to this report.

Correction: This report has been updated to reflect that most, not all of the candidates WISDOM is advancing were convicted as young men and won’t be eligible for parole until 2040.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The Waupun Correctional Institution, the oldest prison in Wisconsin built in the 1850s, sits in the middle of a residential neighborhood (Photo | Wisconsin Examiner)

The State of Wisconsin Building Commission on Tuesday approved releasing $15 million to prepare preliminary plans and a design report for major changes to Wisconsin’s prison system requested by Gov. Tony Evers. Wisconsin prisons have long been criticized for aging facilities, overcrowding and deaths. 

Republican lawmakers on the commission complained that Evers has not incorporated their ideas in his plan, but the commission ultimately voted unanimously to release the money to pay for the first step in the process of realizing it. 

At a press conference before the Building Commission meeting, Rep. Rob Swearingen (R-Rhinelander) said Republican lawmakers’ goal is “to ensure we have the information needed” for informed decisions about facility upgrades, prison capacity and responsibly closing the Green Bay Correctional Institution. 

Money for the planning will come from the state budget, which included the $15 million released by the commission Tuesday.

Under the project, the Wisconsin Department of Corrections would be able to close the Green Bay Correctional Institution, the department’s request to the commission states. Upgrades would be made to infrastructure at five other facilities, including the troubled Waupun Correctional Institution. 

The aging Waupun and Green Bay prisons have generated a public outcry over living conditions, as well as the deaths of several people incarcerated at Waupun and criminal charges filed last year against Waupun staff. 

Republicans criticize Evers’ approach

“Currently, [the Department of Corrections] is in a world of hurt,” Senate President Mary Felzkowski (R-Tomahawk) said at the Republicans’ press conference. She cited overcrowding at men’s and women’s facilities, facility infrastructure problems and the death of Lincoln Hills youth counselor Corey Proulx last year. 

Felzskowski referenced the prison proposal Evers put out in February and said he never reached out to the Legislature. 

“The Republicans in this building have plans, proposals that we’ve been working on for a long time, that we could’ve worked with the governor in a bipartisan fashion,” Felzskowski said.

Sen. André Jacque (R-New Franken) said that “what we have before us is, unfortunately, not a serious proposal.”

“…We look at a scenario where the governor says, ‘My way or the highway,’ when we know he’s not going to be in the governor’s mansion come 2027,” Jacque said, saying “it’s unfortunately a plan doomed to failure unless some additional steps are taken.”

Jacque attempted to add projects to the original motion: expansion of Taycheedah Correctional Institution, expansion of medium and minimum security beds at Jackson Correctional Institution and closure of Green Bay Correctional Institution by Dec. 31, 2029. But his motion failed with four members in favor and four opposed.

“Let’s just get something goddamn done here, please,” Evers said during the commission meeting. “…We got to fix the system, and we have an opportunity now.” In a statement, Felzkowski said she is cautiously optimistic following the building commission meeting and looks forward to “having productive conversations to move Wisconsin’s corrections system in the right direction.” 

What’s in the plan?

Under the project, the Waupun prison would become a medium security prison, and it would have upgraded housing units and  enhanced vocational programming. Gov. Tony Evers said he wants to revamp the prison into a “state-of-the-art ‘vocational village.’” 

The troubled Lincoln Hills School, which has remained open as a juvenile facility long after a deadline for closure has passed, would be converted to a 500-bed men’s medium security facility. 

Medium-security Stanley Correctional Institution, which is northeast of Eau Claire, would switch to maximum security, while John C. Burke Correctional Center in Waupun would become a women’s facility. Sanger B. Powers Correctional Center in northeast Wisconsin would receive housing expansion and kitchen replacement that would increase its capacity. 

The request to the commission included an anticipated budget and schedule, which put the total cost at $325 million and final completion in January 2031.  By releasing the planning money that had been included in the state budget, the eight-member commission, chaired by the governor and comprised of legislators from both parties, took the first step in the process. But Republicans and Evers continue to disagree on next steps. Evers promised Tuesday to include legislators in discussions throughout the process.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Demonstrators protest outside the immigration processing and detention facility this month in Broadview, Ill. President Donald Trump wants to deploy Texas National Guard members to the Chicago area but has been blocked by federal courts. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

As President Donald Trump prepares to send National Guard troops — from either Oregon, California or possibly Texas — into Portland, Oregon, entrepreneur Sarah Shaoul watches with deep concern.

A three-decade resident of the Portland area, Shaoul leads a coalition of roughly 100 local small businesses, including many dependent on foot traffic. Armed troops could spook customers and, she fears, trigger a crisis where none exists.

“I don’t want this to be a political conversation but, I mean, the fact you bring people from other states who maybe have different politics — I think it shows an administration that’s trying to pit people against other people,” Shaoul said.

Trump’s campaign to send the National Guard into Democratic-leaning cities he describes as crime-ridden has so far reached Los Angeles; Washington, D.C.; Memphis, Tennessee; Chicago and Portland. He has federalized — taken command of — hundreds of active-duty guard members to staff the deployments.

But in the two most recent attempted deployments to Portland and the Chicago area, the Trump administration has turned to out-of-state National Guard troops, the part-time soldiers who often respond to natural disasters.

National guards are usually under the control of state governors, with state funds paying for their work. But sometimes the troops can be called into federal service at federal expense and placed under the president’s control.

In addition to federalizing some members of the Oregon and Illinois National Guard within those states, the president sent 200 Texas National Guard troops to the Chicago area and plans to send California National Guard members to Portland. A Pentagon memo has also raised the possibility of sending some Texas troops to Portland.

Presidents who have federalized National Guard forces in the past, even against a governor’s will, have done so in response to a crisis in the troops’ home state. That happened to enforce school desegregation in Arkansas in 1957 and Alabama in 1963.

But the decision to send one state’s National Guard troops into a different state without the receiving governor’s consent is both extraordinary and unprecedented, experts on national security law told Stateline.

The cross-border deployments evoke concerns stretching back to the country’s infancy, when the Federalist Papers in 1787-1788 grappled with the possibility that states could take military action against one another. While the recent cross-state deployments have all included troops under Trump’s command, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has been an enthusiastic supporter of Trump ordering his state’s National Guard to Chicago.

The troop movements raise questions of state sovereignty and how far the president can go in using the militia of one state to exercise power in another. At stake is Trump’s ability to effectively repurpose military forces for domestic use in line with an August executive order that called for the creation of a National Guard “quick reaction force” that could rapidly deploy nationwide.

“It’s really like …  a little bit like invading another country,” said Claire Finkelstein, a professor of law and philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania who studies military ethics and national security law.

The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow it to proceed with the Chicago-area deployment, which is currently blocked in federal court. On Monday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the deployment in Portland to move forward, overruling a district court judge, but additional appeals are expected.

The deployments come as Trump has repeatedly threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to expand his ability to use the military for law enforcement. Presidents are generally prohibited from deploying the military domestically, but the Insurrection Act, which dates back to 1792, could be used to bypass restrictions and potentially allow National Guard members to make immigration-related arrests.

For now, Trump has federalized National Guard members under a federal law known as Title 10, which allows the president to take command of National Guard members in response to invasion, rebellions against the United States and whenever the president is unable to execute federal laws with “regular forces.”

He has characterized illegal immigration as an invasion and sought to station National Guard members outside of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, facilities and other federal property.

While Chicago and Portland fight Trump’s moves in court, other cities are bracing for the arrival of troops in anticipation that the deployments will continue to expand. Washington state went so far as to enact a new law earlier this year intended to prevent out-of-state National Guard members from deploying in Washington. The new state law doesn’t pertain to federalized troops, however, only to those that might be sent by another governor.

“I’m incredibly concerned but not necessarily surprised by the president’s method of operation, that there seems to be a theme of fear, intimidation, bullying without a clear plan,” Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell said in an interview with Stateline.

Harrell, who is running for reelection to the nonpartisan office in November, said Seattle officials are monitoring what’s happening in other cities. Any deployment of guard members — whether they were from Washington or elsewhere — would be concerning, he said.

“At the end of the day, they would be following orders with some level of military precision, so my concern isn’t so much out-of-state or in-state. I just oppose any kind of deployment.”

Courtroom fights

Whether the out-of-state status of National Guard members matters legally is up for debate. Experts in national security law are split over whether sending federalized troops across state lines poses constitutional and legal problems, even as they broadly agree the move is provocative.

Joseph Nunn, a counsel in the left-leaning Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, doubts the cross-state deployment of federalized troops is itself a legal issue.

Still, he criticized the decision to send in out-of-state National Guard and, speaking about Chicago, called the underlying deployment unlawful and unjustified. In ordering troops to Illinois, Nunn said, Trump was abusing his presidential power, regardless of the servicemembers’ home state.

“It is unnecessarily inflammatory,” Nunn said of that choice. “It is, I think, insulting to say we’re going to send the National Guard from one state into another.”

Democrats, especially in cities and states targeted by Trump, condemn the deployments as an abuse of presidential power, regardless of where the troops are from. Republicans have largely supported or stayed silent about Trump’s moves, though Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, who chairs the National Governors Association, has criticized the sending of Texas troops to Illinois.

Abbott wrote on social media in early October that he had “fully authorized” Trump to call up 400 Texas National Guard members. Abbott’s office didn’t respond to Stateline’s questions.

“You can either fully enforce protection for federal employees or get out of the way and let Texas Guard do it,” Abbott wrote on X.

In the Chicago area and in Portland, the Trump administration wants the National Guard outside ICE facilities where small protests have taken place in recent weeks. Dozens of people have been arrested in Portland since June, but there’s been no sign of widespread violence. A Stateline analysis of U.S. Census Bureau and federal crime data found that Trump’s National Guard deployments have not, with a single exception, targeted the nation’s most violent cities.

For weeks federal courts have kept National Guard troops off the streets of Portland and the Chicago area as legal challenges play out, but that could be changing. The Trump administration on Friday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow it to deploy National Guard troops in the Chicago area. If the court sides with the administration, the decision could clear the way for additional deployments elsewhere.

In the Friday filing to the Supreme Court, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote: “This case presents what has become a disturbing and recurring pattern: Federal officers are attempting to enforce federal immigration law in an urban area containing significant numbers of illegal aliens. The federal agents’ efforts are met with prolonged, coordinated, violent resistance that threatens their lives and safety and systematically interferes with their ability to enforce federal law.”

The U.S. Department of Defense didn’t directly answer questions from Stateline about whether further cross-state deployments are planned, saying only that it doesn’t speculate on future operations.

U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut wrote in an order blocking deployment of the National Guard in Portland that a handful of documented episodes of protesters clashing with federal law enforcement during September were “inexcusable,” but added that “they are nowhere near the type of incidents that cannot be handled by regular law enforcement forces.”

But on Monday, a divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trump had “lawfully exercised his statutory authority” to deploy Oregon National Guard servicemembers to Portland. Lawyers for Oregon and Portland are seeking a review by the full appeals court, a move that would put the case in front of 11 appellate judges.

Shaoul, the Portland business leader, said the presence of troops would itself risk creating “drama” at the expense of taxpayers.

“Tell me how that’s helping anybody to go in and intimidate a bunch of people who are dressed up in friggin’ costumes, playing music,” Shaoul said. “I mean, if nothing else illustrates what a joke this is, that should tell you right there.”

10th Amendment concerns

Top Republicans have long telegraphed their desire to use the National Guard to aid immigration enforcement.

In December, before Trump took office, 26 GOP governors — at the time, every Republican governor except Vermont’s Phil Scott — signed a statement promising to provide their national guards to help.

Since Trump’s inauguration, at least 11 Republican governors have ordered National Guard members to help ICE, typically by providing logistical support. At least four states — Florida, Louisiana, Texas and West Virginia — have entered into federal agreements that allow ICE to delegate some immigration enforcement duties, potentially including arrests, to National Guard members.

Trump’s decision to federalize National Guard members goes further, placing troops under the president’s command. The cross-state deployments represent the next step in testing his authority to command guard members.

Finkelstein, the national security law professor, said sending one state’s National Guard into another state raises serious legal issues under the 10th Amendment. The amendment reserves for the states or the people powers not specifically granted to the federal government — the idea at the core of federalism.

A president and governor may reasonably disagree about whether federalization is necessary to help their state, Finkelstein said, but “even that fig leaf” isn’t available when troops are sent to another state. California gets nothing out of the deployment of its National Guard to Oregon, she said. And unless it’s California’s governor — rather than the president — making the choice to deploy guard members elsewhere, it’s a “very real problem” that undermines state autonomy, she said.

Washington state Rep. Jim Walsh, who chairs the Washington State Republican Party, has been monitoring the attempted deployment in Portland, as well as the possibility of a deployment to Seattle. He said Trump has broad discretion under federal law to federalize National Guard members.

Still, Walsh said federalizing the National Guard gives him pause and is something that a hypothetical president — “leave this one out of the equation” — might overuse. But he argued state and local leadership in cities where the National Guard has been deployed have brought the situation on themselves by allowing a breakdown in law and order.

Asked about cross-state deployments, Walsh largely dismissed any legal concerns.

“I guess they would know the area better,” Walsh said of troops deployed in their home state. “But this is kind of a specious argument. … The president, whoever he or she is, can federalize National Guard units.”

Walsh said he doesn’t see a situation at the moment that would necessitate a Guard deployment within Washington state.

But Seattle isn’t taking any chances.

Harrell, the Seattle mayor, signed two executive orders in October, one that pushes back on the practice of federal agents making immigration arrests while wearing masks, and another that seeks to maintain control over local law enforcement resources if the National Guard is deployed in the city.

“I’m critically concerned about what can occur as a reaction,” Harrell said. “That’s exactly what Trump’s goal is, to raise tension and create chaos and to use blue cities as scapegoats.”

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct the year, 1957, that President Dwight D. Eisenhower federalized National Guard troops to enforce desegregation in Arkansas. Stateline reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@stateline.org.