Detention data released by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement this week show that ICE is detaining more and more people in Wisconsin jails — and most of the people detained have no criminal convictions.

The post ICE is detaining more people in Wisconsin jails. Immigration attorneys are scrambling to keep up.  appeared first on WPR.

The U.S. government filed a lawsuit against the city of Milwaukee Thursday, arguing the city has no authority to enforce its ordinance preventing law enforcement from wearing masks while interacting with the public. 

The lawsuit, filed against the city as well as its mayor, city attorney and police chief, argues that cities and states are unable to regulate federal government action. 

“For centuries, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that States have no authority whatsoever to regulate the Federal Government,” the lawsuit states. “Despite that well-established principle, Milwaukee recently enacted an ordinance that purports to do exactly what constitutional law says it cannot: regulate how federal law enforcement officers carry out their official duties in that City.”

Initially enacted in April, the Milwaukee ordinance prohibits law enforcement officers performing their duties from covering their faces and requires that their names and the agency they work for be easily identifiable on their uniform. 

“The use of facial coverings and disguises by law enforcement officers significantly affects the public’s perception of law enforcement, officer-community interactions, and accountability,” the ordinance states. “Persons reasonably may experience fear or intimidation when approached by officers whose faces are obscured. Such reactions can heighten defensive behavior and unnecessarily escalate the tension inherent in many interactions between law enforcement officers and members of the public.”

Last week, City Attorney Evan Goyke wrote in a letter to U.S. prosecutors  that federal officers wouldn’t be exempted from the ordinance, prompting the lawsuit. 

“the City and the public have a right to know if masked, armed, and unidentified men seizing people on our streets are who they say they are,” Goyke wrote, objecting to the federal government’s insistence that immigration officers be allowed to conceal their identities “at their discretion.”

“Unfortunately, in the case of federal immigration officers, in particular, that unbounded discretion, coupled with guns and a lack of accountability, has had tragic consequences in cities across the country,” he wrote. Goyke disputed the federal government’s claim that the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution makes ordinances such as Milwaukee’s illegal, citing previous and ongoing litigation on the matter.

Federal immigration officers across the country have worn masks while carrying out  President Donald Trump’s crackdown on immigrants. Federal officials have argued the masks prevent officers from being doxxed. 

“State and local leaders cannot tell Federal officers how to do their job,” Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward, Jr. said in a news release. “And they certainly cannot prohibit them from ensuring their own safety in safeguarding our communities and enforcing federal law. We will never tolerate the doxxing or harassment of federal officers, or any law like Milwaukee’s that enables violent behavior against law enforcement officers and their families.”

The lawsuit argues that federal officers should be able to make decisions about covering their faces on a case-by-case basis. 

“Denying federal agencies and officers discretion in these areas would chill federal law enforcement, threatening the safety of communities in Milwaukee,” the lawsuit states.

Brad Schimel, the former conservative Supreme Court candidate who is now an assistant U.S. attorney, said that the ordinance pits federal and local cops against each other. 

“Not only is this ordinance an affront to the Constitution, but it jeopardizes the safety of our courageous sworn law enforcement officers,” Schimel said. “Further, it puts local and federal law enforcement officers at odds with each other when they should be working together on the common goals to enforce the rule of law and keep our communities safe.”

Gov. Tony Evers sent a letter Thursday to President Donald Trump and Wisconsin’s congressional delegation urging the White House to resolve delays in the processing of applications for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. 

The DACA program has existed since the administration of President Barack Obama and allows people who were brought to the country as children without documentation to live and work in the U.S. 

There are 500,000 DACA recipients across the country and more than 5,000 in Wisconsin. The Trump administration has put their renewal applications on “processing holds.” For some of the program’s participants, those holds have now pushed their renewal beyond the deadline, putting their ability to obtain work permits and driver’s licenses at risk. 

Since its inception in 2012, the DACA program has been broadly popular among Democrats and Republicans. Earlier this year, Evers signed into law a bipartisan bill that allows DACA recipients to obtain occupational licenses from the state. 

But Trump attempted to end the program during his first term and amid his administration’s harsh crackdown on immigration, DACA recipients have been detained and deported despite their legal status. The delays in application processing have put even more people in legal limbo. 

“Mr. President, I urge you to end this harmful practice by your administration and resume expeditious processing and renewal of DACA applications,” Evers wrote. “And to Wisconsin’s Republican congressional delegation, I urge you to stand up for Wisconsin’s Dreamers, who will be or are up for renewals, and join me in demanding that the Trump Administration immediately identify and resolve the source of these unconscionable delays and resume processing and renewal of DACA applications, as Senator Baldwin, Congressman Pocan, and Congresswoman Moore have done. These hardworking members of our community should not endure the consequences of the Trump Administration’s failure to uphold the DACA program to basic standards.”

The Trump administration is suing the city of Milwaukee over a city ordinance that prohibits immigration enforcement agents from wearing masks.

The post Trump administration sues Milwaukee over mask ban for federal officers appeared first on WPR.

An immigration judge took testimony all day Wednesday in the U.S. government's prosecution of Salah Sarsour, the leader of Wisconsin's largest mosque who was detained by immigration officials in March.

The post Deportation hearing begins for Milwaukee Muslim leader Salah Sarsour appeared first on WPR.

A federal immigration judge heard arguments Wednesday from attorneys in a deportation hearing for Salah Sarsour, the president of Milwaukee’s Islamic Society. Earlier this year, Sarsour was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and then detained in an Indiana facility for months. Sarsour was released in June following a federal judge’s ruling that his arrest constituted First Amendment retaliation due to his advocacy for Palestinians and his criticism of the Israeli government. 

The Wednesday hearing, which ran all day before being adjourned until next week, was to determine whether Sarsour’s deportation order can be upheld. Sarsour has lived in the U.S. with no criminal record for decades, and is considered a local community leader. Sarsour became a lawful permanent resident in 1998 when his application was approved under Republican president George W. Bush in 2002. 

After his arrest, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) accused Sarsour of lying on his 1993 green card application, asserting that Sarsour was convicted in Israeli military courts of throwing Molotov cocktails at the homes of Israeli soldiers. The department also cites other accusations by Israeli authorities that Sarsour “illegally attempted to possess” weapons and ammunition. Sarsour’s family members have said that he would tell stories of being tortured to confess while in Israeli detention. Prosecutors repeatedly referenced detentions and accusations from Israeli authorities against Sarsour during 1988 and 1995.

Those accusations, and the context of what living under Israeli military occupation means for Palestinians in the West Bank, were examined in court Wednesday. Defense attorneys first called Sarsour’s older brother Mohammad, a U.S. citizen who is married and lives in Oak Creek. Mohammad testified that he helped his brother retain a well-known lawyer in the West Bank when Sarsour was arrested. He denied ever seeing Sarsour ever provide support to terrorists of any kind, and recalled that Sarsour went through three or four Israeli military court hearings.

“Every time I saw him, I noticed weight loss and also discoloration in his eyes, redness, yellowish,” said Mohammad Sarsour, speaking through an Arabic translator, although he also understood English. “And had a discolored, faded face color. He looked like he was unable to take showers so his hair was sticking on his head.” There were other signs that his brother was not being provided proper hygiene access, and that he “complained to the court of pain in his knee and back.” Mohammad said that the Israeli authorities would not allow them to talk to Sarsour, but that at one point a member of the Israeli secret service told Mohammad and Sarsour’s wife to persuade him to plead guilty. 

Prosecutors raised questions about Mohammad’s ability to remember those events from decades ago. Mohammad couldn’t remember the exact dates of the hearings. Prosecutors questioned why an Israeli military official would tell them to get Sarsour to plead guilty if they generally weren’t allowed to talk to him. “They [Israeli authorities] can do whatever they want,” he said on the stand. Mohammad was also asked by prosecutors whether he loved his brother and didn’t want to see him be deported, which Mohammad affirmed.

Defense attorneys also called Alan Hirsch, an expert in false confessions and chair of the Justice & Law Studies Program at Williams College. Prosecutors spent an extended period of  time trying to convince the judge, unsuccessfully, that Hirsch was not qualified to testify as an expert in false interrogations, particularly as his direct knowledge of Israeli interrogation practices would be limited. Hirsch testified that Israeli authorities, based on his own studies, were “using aggressive interrogation tactics” during the time when Sarsour was detained. He said that there’s no evidence that Sarsour’s confession either generated new evidence or corroborated existing evidence, and that when Sarsour was initially detained in 1988 he was a juvenile, one of the groups most vulnerable to giving false confessions. 

Another defense witness had a much more extensive knowledge of Israeli treatment of Palestinians. Sari Bashi, an Israeli lawyer and human rights investigator, testified remotely, from Israel, where it was late at night when she was called to give her testimony. Bashi has an extensive knowledge of what Palestinian prisoners go through in Israeli detention and military courts. She pointed out that Sarsour’s 1988 arrest occurred shortly after the First Intifada, a sustained period of uprising and protest by Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Prosecutors attempted to undermine her credibility as an expert, casting her as overly sympathetic to Palestinians, and saying she was too young to have known first-hand what Israeli practices in 1988 were. 

Bashi said that Israel holds the West Bank under “belligerent occupation,” where the local military commander serves as the executive, lawmaker, judge and executor of law. Military orders dictate what is considered a crime in the West Bank, and Palestinians can be detained without charge for long periods of time. Sometimes evidence against the accused is considered secret, and proceedings and documentation are in Hebrew, which few Palestinians speak and even fewer can read. “The system lacks very basic due process standards,” said Bashi. “So arrests are the norm, even for children.” Conviction rates in Israeli military courts against Palestinian civilians are over 90 percent. 

Under this regime, Palestinian people often receive very vague charges for organizing community activities, public disorder, association, or writing a liberation slogan on a wall, Bashi testified. “There can be almost no limit to what that association can look like,” she said. This was especially true during the First Intifada, a period during which Bashi said that hundreds of thousands of people were detained by Israeli authorities.

Bashi said that Israeli forces used euphemisms such as “moderate physical pressure,” “threats,” and “severe psychological pressure” to describe tactics which she and other international experts would simply call “torture.” During testimony she listed a variety of interrogation tactics including violent shaking; prolonged stress positions, beatings, sexual violence such as forced nudity, hitting of genitals, or rape threats, temperature torture, exposure to foul smells and human bodily fluids, being forced to hear the screaming of other tortured detaines, sleep deprivation, the targeted arrest and threating of loved ones and choking. 

“People will do whatever they think will get them out, released, as quickly as possible,” said Bashi. “They just want to make that stop.” Reviewing the Israeli records provided for the hearing, Bashi said that she can only see pending charges for membership in unlawful associations and helping wanted people as of 1995 for Sarsour. Based on the records she reviewed, it wasn’t clear to Bashi whether Sarsour had ever been convicted of weapons charges. She also pointed out that he was kept in detention for a matter of months, which is “pretty short” compared with  a typical Israeli detention experience. “It would seem inconsistent with somebody who they truly believed was providing assistance” to terrorists, Bashi said. 

Prosecutors asked Bashi whether she was aware of accusations as described in Sarsour’s immigration records. She said she was not. Bashi only reviewed Israeli records. Prosecutors also targeted Bashi’s statements that high conviction rates may indicate some sort of problem like torture, citing high conviction rates in America. Bashi said that whenever there are exceedingly high conviction rates, it’s worth asking why that is. She said that while she doesn’t know Sarsour, everything he described in terms of being tortured by Israeli forces to produce a confession is  “extremely common” among Palestinians. 

Correction: A previous version of this story mistakenly described Sarsour’s application for permanent residency as a “naturalization” application, which would have been an application for citizenship, not permanent residency. We regret the error.

WASHINGTON — A supermajority of the U.S. Senate Democratic Caucus has asked Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin to deploy body cameras to all federal immigration officers, following deadly shootings of immigrants in Texas and Maine.

In a July 19 letter addressed to Mullin, 38 Senate Democrats and Maine’s Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, requested information about the shootings this month in Houston of 52-year-old Lorenzo Salgado Araujo and in Biddeford, Maine, of 25-year-old Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero. 

Neither man was the initial enforcement target when Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers stopped their vehicles, the Department of Homeland Security has said.

“The unnecessary loss of life in these incidents demands immediate, thorough, independent, and transparent investigations (including the full involvement of local and state law enforcement personnel), along with a comprehensive examination of enforcement protocols, training, and operational approaches necessary to prevent such tragedies,” the senators wrote.

The lawmakers pressed Mullin about providing body cameras to immigration officers, pointing out the Congress has allocated $175 billion to the department since last year. From that funding, DHS planned to hire up to 10,000 ICE officers.

“While DHS has previously acknowledged that body-worn cameras promote public trust and increase officer and public safety, accountability, and transparency, the Department has clearly not prioritized acquiring cameras,” the senators wrote.

None of the ICE officers involved in the shootings were wearing body cameras. 

“Contrary to recent statements made by the Department and the White House, DHS has had more than sufficient time and funding to procure and deploy a body-worn camera for every officer before the end of 2025,” they wrote.

Enough funding

Congressional Republicans last year used a special legislative maneuver to allocate roughly $175 billion to DHS for immigration enforcement, detainment and deportations, without needing Democratic support. 

They used the same move following the shutdown this year to fund $75 billion for ICE and Border Patrol through September of 2029. 

Republicans used the maneuver that allows party-line votes after Democrats refused to provide more funding for DHS unless restraints were placed on ICE and Border Patrol officers following the killings of two U.S. citizens — Alex Pretti and Renee Good — by federal immigration agents in Minnesota in January. 

Among Democrats’ demands at the time was that immigration officers wear body cameras. Top Trump officials, including then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, said body cameras would be provided to immigration agents.

“The recent tragedies confirm that neither of these commitments were honored,” senators wrote in the letter.

Traffic stops unpaused

White House border czar Tom Homan said over the weekend that ICE officers will wear “at least one body camera” during traffic stops.

Following the two killings this month, DHS instructed immigration officers to pause vehicle stops, but President Donald Trump quickly instructed the department to continue the policy.  

During the second Trump administration, federal immigration officers have shot 22 people and killed six, including three U.S. citizens. Most of the shootings stemmed from traffic stops.

In the letter, senators also sought information about DHS’s plan to have an independent investigation into the killings, the vetting process for new immigration officers, the department’s procedures for vehicle stops and any additional oversight and reporting requirements DHS is implementing.

WASHINGTON — As many as 20,000 unaccompanied immigrant children are at risk of losing their federally funded legal representation due to the Trump administration withholding appropriated funds, immigration attorneys warned Tuesday.

For more than six months, the Health and Human Services Department’s Office of Refugee Resettlement has not released $65 million Congress appropriated for legal representation of unaccompanied children in immigration cases. That means children may have to press their immigration claims on their own, vastly raising the probability they will be deported, the attorneys said.

“Children are now facing the real possibility of representing themselves alone against experienced government attorneys,” Ana Devereaux, an attorney at the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, said during a virtual press conference. 

Shaina Aber, the executive director for Acacia Center for Justice, a national group that partners with at least 100 legal organizations to provide services to children, said the lack of funding is already being felt. Several of the group’s partners have declined to continue the partnerships because they have not been reimbursed, she said. 

Aber said the funds were withheld because attorneys refused to hand over to the administration sensitive case data from the unaccompanied children, such as medical records and the types of legal relief the minors are seeking. 

“These children should not, and should never be, leveraged in a political game,” she said. 

HHS did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment. 

‘Children are children’

Without a lawyer, fewer than 10% of immigrant children win the right to remain in the United States while their case goes through immigration court, said Elizabeth Young, a former immigration judge. 

Some children going through the courts are too young to speak, she said during the press conference. 

“A legal system that values fairness cannot expect children to carry that burden alone,” Young said. 

Devereaux said the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center is operating on reserves and has continued to provide legal services for about 1,100 children. 

“Children are children, regardless of their nationality,” Devereaux said. 

Stripping away the legal services for children, Aber said, is “yet another system of mass deportations.”

Additionally, the Trump administration does not plan to renew its contract with Acacia, which ends July 31, Aber said. 

Instead, the administration is eyeing a small Texas state commission that aids low-income people with criminal defense to provide legal services for immigrant children. The commission does not have experience handling immigration cases or unaccompanied minors, Aber said. 

Lawmakers push to release funds

Democratic members of Congress have also called on the Trump administration to release the funds, which Congress approved. 

Last month, more than 70 lawmakers demanded that ORR reimburse the legal groups. 

“Ultimately, we are concerned that these payment delays may be an attempt to circumvent requirements that ORR continue funding legal services for unaccompanied children,” they wrote. “The federal government must meet its obligations under the law.”

Congress created the Unaccompanied Children Program, which, among other things, provides funding for legal representation of migrant children. Free legal representation is not generally provided for immigrants but there is a carveout for unaccompanied children. 

There are about 100 organizations across the U.S. that provide those legal services. 

The move from the Trump administration to withhold funds has sparked several lawsuits. Last year, a preliminary injunction was put in place that ordered the federal government to continue funding legal services for unaccompanied children. 

But advocates have not received any funds since December and were back in court this month. 

Last week, federal Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín of the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California probed whether the Trump administration should be held in contempt over the withholding of funds after 11 groups claimed they have still not received any reimbursements, according to El Paso Matters.

Those groups are the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, Estrella del Paso, Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, Galveston-Houston Immigrant Representation Project, Immigrant Defenders Law Center, National Immigrant Justice Center, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network, Social Justice Collaborative and the Vermont Asylum Assistance Project. 

Immigration arrests reached 1,593 per day in early July in a new push to detain and deport immigrants that has led to deaths in traffic stops. There were more than 43,000 arrests in June, the highest recorded by the Trump administration, according to statistics released Monday by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement reflecting new bookings into detention facilities. 

The June monthly total surpassed the 42,000 arrests in December, which included Operation Metro Surge in Minneapolis. If the rate for the first 11 days of July continues for a month it could be even higher, about 49,000 arrests.

Following fatal shootings, ICE officers ordered to wear body cameras at traffic stops

Arrest numbers reached as high as 2,000 per day over a five-day period in late June, according to a New York Times report. The Department of Homeland Security has said it is “delivering on President Trump’s promise to the American people to arrest and deport pedophiles, murderers, rapists, and other criminals,” though less than a third of current detainees have a criminal conviction and 40% have never been accused of anything but non-criminal immigration violations, according to the statistics.

The Department of Homeland Security posted a list Monday of 15 immigrants previously convicted of serious crimes it said were arrested “while Americans enjoyed the weekend and the FIFA World Cup Finals.” 

The statistics also show that about 2,000 detainees a month have been freed by court-ordered bond hearings, as many federal judges, even many Trump appointees, rule against the administration’s policy of mandatory detention for many immigrants. The U.S. Supreme Court is likely to rule on the legality of the policy in its October term. 

Two immigrants were shot and killed during enforcement traffic stops in Texas and Maine this month. After a brief pause, President Donald Trump ordered traffic stops to continue. ICE officers will wear body cameras during such stops, according to border czar Tom Homan. 

A man from Mexico, apparently on a valid tourist visa for a vacation, was also killed in traffic in Florida after an encounter with ICE in July. Arrests in New York City immigration courts have also continued despite a court order banning the practice.  

Some of the unusual arrests that have come to light in the current crackdown include a nun from Nigeria walking to church in Texas (she was released the same day) and an Alaska state attorney from China. 

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has made its position clear. The agency refuses to require its agents to follow Milwaukee’s law banning masks. Since it is unable to come to this common sense conclusion itself, the remedy is for Milwaukee City Attorney Evan Goyke to sue. This is how we keep secret police at bay.

Goyke has taken the first step. In a July 17 letter to the U.S. Department of Justice, he defends the ICE out MKE ordinance, stating that masked law enforcement “increases the risk of dangerous interactions with the public, undermines accountability and police community relations, and stokes confusions, fear, and intimidation.”

Milwaukee prohibits ICE agents from wearing masks. The Department of Homeland Security staunchly refuses to follow this sensible rule despite a Milwaukee Police Department standard operating procedure that models this basement level of transparency. We need to know what ICE is doing. We need to know who you are. We need to see your faces.

DHS claims that it won’t follow Milwaukee’s ordinance because of the Supremacy Clause. Their claim asserts that municipalities cannot create rules that prevent employees from performing federal duties and, in most cases, the Supremacy Clause makes sense.

We wouldn’t want a city ordinance to keep the U.S. Census Bureau from collecting population data. We wouldn’t want municipalities to prevent the National Weather Service from studying tornados. At the same time, identifiable and transparent federal law enforcement is not at odds with the rule of law. 

Clarity and accountability is at the heart of our Fifth Amendment’s promise of due process. The Supremacy Clause does not supersede our Constitution’s protections. The clause itself is a component of our Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) and no article or clause may violate the Bill of Rights. 

The Mask-Free MKE ordinance took time to create. Over and over again, our church members returned to the Common Council’s galley seats as the rule was amended, re-written and reviewed by our city attorney, Evan Goyke. Goyke’s job is to make sure that the proposed ordinance is constitutional and enforceable. Goyke’s verdict is that the people of Milwaukee can prohibit masked law enforcement.

Consider the current situation of Giovanni Sosa, a 20-year old with no criminal record. Gio came to the United States when he was 4 years old. Recently, he was snatched by masked ICE agents, leaving his wife Litzy without her husband and his 2 year old daughter without her father.

Gio has worked construction jobs since he was 14 and has never run afoul of law enforcement. Last week, while heading to the barber, his car was surrounded and blocked. His window was smashed and he was handcuffed and dragged to  detention. As he was shoved into a government car, Gio had the presence of mind to yell out his mother’s phone number. Had he not done so, he simply would not have returned home from the errands he was running. Who took him? Where was he? Was his detention legal? Was the use of force necessary?

Our Constitution protects us from having to ask these questions. The Fifth Amendment states that “no person” shall be deprived of life or liberty without protections against arbitrary government actions. Surely, masks cross this line.

DHS claims that it must allow its employees to wear masks for their safety. Lauren Bis, a DHS spokesperson, states, “Sanctuary politicians attempting to ban our federal law enforcement from wearing masks is … a flagrant attempt to endanger our officers.” 

The Trump administration’s immigration enforcers fear that without masks, their employees’ actions would instigate such a strong public outcry that they would be forced to hold officers accountable. They don’t want the public to identify officers responsible for using excessive force. How can DHS officials be opposed to basic transparency before the public it serves?

This is where City Attorney Evan Goyke can help. DHS has convinced itself that the Supremacy Clause supersedes the Constitution. Its insistence that secrecy and obfuscation is a means to serve the people is a slippery rationalization that leads to a secret police force. City Attorney Goyke should sue ICE and require the agency to comply with the law. It is for the good of the residents of Milwaukee, for ICE’s own agents, for MPD officers and for our democratic heritage. This moment of trial will turn our commitment to defend our rights into steel. Our’s is a nation without a secret police. Masks cross a line. At this pivotal hour, Milwaukee must lead.

Seeking to stop a “flood” of court cases freeing immigrants from mandatory detention, the Trump administration is asking an appeals court to put three immigrants back in detention.

The immigrants were freed by Texas federal judges in February and March in a case that was upheld by an appeals court panel for Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, which found that such immigrants have the right to bond hearings within 90 days of being detained. That decision was reversed by the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which will hold a full hearing on the case in September. 

In court papers filed earlier this month, the Trump administration noted the thousands of recent court cases, called habeas petitions, in which judges determined that the mandatory detention policy violates the U.S. constitution. In many cases, those determinations were made even by judges appointed by Trump.

“This flood of habeas petitions has inflicted a devastating toll on U.S. Attorneys’ Offices as well as district courts — draining those Offices’ resources and impeding numerous other significant priorities,” administration attorneys wrote in the filing. The administration asked for a decision by Monday, July 20, that would put the three men back into immigration detention as a precedent for other judges to follow.

Rebecca Cassler, a senior litigation attorney with the American Immigration Council, which represents the three men, told Stateline the men were all pulled over in traffic stops, have no criminal record and have children who are U.S. citizens, and have each lived in the U.S. more than 10 years. They are subject to the Trump administration’s mandatory detention policy because they crossed a border illegally. 

“This is a highly irregular motion to file at this stage of the case, and it would work tremendous hardship on the clients and their families,” Cassler said. 

In immigration detention, the men “experienced rotten food, inadequate medical care, maggot- and fungus-ridden mattresses, and devastating separation from their families,” according to court papers filed Friday by the American Immigration Council. 

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

As the Trump administration continues its crackdown  on illegal immigration, states and cities that have pushed back with so-called sanctuary policies have faced a barrage of lawsuits from the U.S. Department of Justice.

The administration has filed a total of 27 lawsuits against more than 20 cities, counties and states with such policies since Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, according to the Justice Department. In just the past three months, the administration has sued at least a half dozen jurisdictions, including Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, a county in Michigan, and the city of Philadelphia, for seeking to place limits on the activities of  U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

These policies tend to focus on restricting immigration enforcement in public spaces, limiting how local law enforcement can cooperate with federal immigration authorities, and barring both local and federal immigration agents from wearing masks or otherwise concealing their identity while on duty.

“These sanctuary policies are most times created to help make communities safer. They promote a greater level of trust and cooperation between communities and public institutions of all kinds,” said Cassandra Charles, senior staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center, an advocacy group.

Some cities have had sanctuary policies since the 1980s, but Charles said many states and cities are creating new protections as the Trump administration has ramped up its deportation campaign. She described the current swell of litigation as “unprecedented.”

Charles said the administration is misinterpreting the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states that federal law trumps state law. That clause, she argued, does not allow the federal government to dictate what laws states can pass, nor does it “create a duty for the states to help the federal government enforce federal law.”

But the Justice Department argues that sanctuary laws violate longstanding constitutional precedent and prevent the federal government from conducting lawful enforcement activities.

“As explained in DOJ’s briefs in these cases, states and localities do not have a right to obstruct federal law enforcement, to regulate the federal government, or to discriminate against the federal government,” Kiersten Pels, an agency spokesperson wrote in an email. “These and other cases simply seek to vindicate that fundamental aspect of our constitutional structure.”

The lawsuits have yielded mixed results.

In May 2025, the Justice Department sued four New Jersey cities (Hoboken, Jersey City, Newark and Paterson) to challenge their policies curtailing local cooperation with federal immigration agents. The next month, a U.S. district judge in New Jersey, appointed by President Joe Biden, tossed out the suit, arguing the cities’ policies didn’t impede ICE activities because of the state’s existing sanctuary laws.

But earlier this month, a U.S. district judge in Pennsylvania sided with the administration in a lawsuit challenging a new Philadelphia policy.

Last month, the administration sued to stop the city of Philadelphia from implementing a new policy barring immigration agents from wearing masks, concealing their badges, or using unmarked vehicles while on the job. Last week, the judge—a Trump appointee—cited the Supremacy Clause in siding with the administration, issuing a preliminary injunction blocking the city from moving forward.

When the Philadelphia City Council approved the policy, the judge ruled, “it attempted to sidestep the Constitution’s clear mandate and disregarded this fundamental principle of law that has informed American jurisprudence for over 200 years.”

The new policy barring officers from concealing their identities was part of a package of seven ICE-related bills the council approved in April. Rue Landau, the city council member who sponsored the package, noted that the other measures have taken effect.

“If the federal government won’t protect their residents, local leaders have the obligation to step up to the plate, and that’s exactly what we did here in Philadelphia,” Landau said. “Great news for Philadelphia: We’ve got six laws on the books, and right now we are working on ensuring that the city of Philadelphia clearly spells out how we’re implementing these laws.”

In late April, the administration filed a similar lawsuit against the state of New Jersey to challenge a law, enacted in March, that prohibits immigration agents from shielding their identity while on duty.

Maryland is the latest state to face a DOJ lawsuit.

Its new law, in effect since May 31, prohibits state and local correctional officers and law enforcement agents from inquiring about or investigating a person’s immigration status. It also bars them from detaining or transferring a person to federal authorities for a suspected immigration violation without a warrant or court order.

Last week, the Justice Department sued Maryland to stop the law, arguing that its “purpose and effect is to obstruct federal law enforcement.”

“Such blatant disregard for federal laws that have been on the books for decades is not merely a political disagreement or passive abstention; it is deliberate, disruptive action that jeopardizes the public safety for all Americans,” the lawsuit states.

In May, local sheriffs from 17 counties in Maryland also sued the state to halt the new law. Their complaint argues that the law puts them in “an impossible and unconstitutional position.”

“If Plaintiffs follow the Act, they are effectively forced to shield removable aliens from federal custody,” the lawsuit states, while “if they continue cooperating with ICE as they have for years, they risk state penalties and lawsuits.”

In some sections, the sheriffs’ lawsuit and the DOJ lawsuit against Maryland employ identical language.

Chris Hajec, head of litigation at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors stricter immigration enforcement and filed the lawsuit on behalf of the sheriffs, said the Maryland law “puts (the sheriffs) in a dilemma.”

“Either they’re violating the state law and they’re going to get sued by their attorney general, or they’re violating the federal criminal law and they could be prosecuted,” Hajec said.

But Maryland Democratic state Sen. Clarence Lam, the Senate sponsor of the new law, dismissed that argument. Lam said the law only limits what state officers can do, without obstructing ICE from carrying out its duties.

“We think that these efforts to block the implementation are bogus,” Lam told Stateline. “We as a state are wholly within our right and jurisdiction to be able to place limitations on what state and local law enforcement agencies can do. There’s nothing that prevents us from doing so, and that’s all this does.”

“Our state taxpayer dollars should not go towards having local law enforcement enforce federal immigration law.”

Stateline reporter Shalina Chatlani can be reached at schatlani@stateline.org.

In a strongly worded letter to federal prosecutors, Milwaukee City Attorney Evan Goyke rejected the U.S. Department of Justice demand that he provide assurances by Friday that neither he, the Milwaukee Police Department nor any other city entity would enforce an ordinance prohibiting law enforcement officers from wearing masks and concealing their identities.

“The only assurances I can offer you,” Goyke wrote in his July 17 letter to Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate and First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Brad Schimel, “are that [the ordinance] is a vital public safety measure, that I will not advise my clients to exempt federal law enforcement officers from enforcement of the Ordinance against them, and that my office will prosecute any validly issued citation for acts in violation of the Ordinance.”

Masked and unidentified law enforcement officers endanger public safety, Goyke wrote, by undermining accountability and police-community relations, stoking confusion, fear and intimidation and heightening the risk that “bad actors will harm others by impersonating officers” and also that “individuals might resist legitimate law enforcement actions where they otherwise would not due to the fear that they are facing an imposter.”

“You express great concern for the safety of federal law enforcement officers throughout your letter,” he added, “but not once do you express any similar concern for the safety of the public.” 

The ordinance, Goyke wrote, does not restrict the federal officers’ ability to perform their lawful duties while protecting the safety and welfare of residents and visitors of Milwaukee.

“the City and the public have a right to know if masked, armed, and unidentified men seizing people on our streets are who they say they are,” he wrote, objecting to the federal government’s insistence that immigration officers be allowed to conceal their identities “at their discretion.”

“Unfortunately, in the case of federal immigration officers, in particular, that unbounded discretion, coupled with guns and a lack of accountability, has had tragic consequences in cities across the country, most recently in Houston, Texas and Biddeford, Maine,” Goyke wrote, referring to recent fatal shootings by immigration officers in those cities. He also described “unnecessarily aggressive tactics” used by ICE officers in Milwaukee, including “boxing in cars, pointing guns and Tasers at people, breaking car windows, and pinning people on the ground.

“Many drove in unmarked vehicles and wore face coverings,” he added.

Goyke disputed the federal government’s claim that the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution makes ordinances such as Milwaukee’s illegal, citing a 1988 circuit court ruling that held “the Supremacy Clause was not intended to be a shield for ‘anything goes’ conduct by federal law enforcement officers,” as well as the 1920 federal court ruling that held “An employee of the United States does not secure a general immunity from state law while acting in the course of his employment.”

He acknowledged that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an injunction pending appeal of California’s law enforcement identification requirement, but said he does not agree with that ruling, adding that no federal court has issued a final ruling on the matter.

The letter closes by stating “this office approved the Ordinance as legal and enforceable. Neither the preliminary court rulings in other jurisdictions nor your letter convince us to change that opinion.”

WASHINGTON — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents on July 13 killed 25-year-old Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero, a Colombian national with legal work authorization, in Maine, making him the 22nd person shot at by federal immigration officers during President Donald Trump’s second term. 

Nearly all of those 22 incidents – 19 – involved Department of Homeland Security officers shooting upon people in their vehicles during traffic stops, a crucial nexus, according to a States Newsroom review of news reports and documents. The encounters spanned the nation, from Colorado to Texas to Oregon to New Jersey.

Since Trump’s inauguration in January 2025, where he promised to carry out an aggressive immigration crackdown, federal immigration officers have killed six people, three of them U.S. citizens. Four deaths came during traffic stops.

Following Guerrero’s death, the second immigrant to be killed by ICE officers during a traffic stop in a week, DHS put a pause on traffic stop enforcement. But Trump quickly ordered the department to abandon those plans.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Thursday that officers will conduct vehicle-related enforcement stops “in order to continue their deportation campaign.”

The agency has plenty of funding at hand. Congressional Republicans last year used a legislative maneuver to allocate roughly $175 billion to DHS for immigration enforcement, detainment and deportations, without needing Democratic support. GOP lawmakers did the same move this year to fund $75 billion for ICE and Border Patrol until September of 2029.

After the ICE shooting in Biddeford, the entire Maine congressional delegation called for an independent investigation, with Republican Sen. Susan Collins urging an end to vehicle enforcement.

A Thursday report from the American Civil Liberties Union found patterns of misconduct by immigration agents during Trump’s second term, identifying 432 incidents where agents either used or threatened to use force against immigrants and bystanders.

The report reviewed more than 1,200 incidents across eight states — Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland and New Mexico. 

Of the traffic-related enforcement, the ACLU found in 76 instances, people and passengers were pulled from their cars; windows were smashed 47 times; officers 14 times rammed vehicles into people’s cars; and they hit people with cars six times. 

What happened afterward

In the moments after those 22 shootings, DHS has quickly accused those who were fired upon of using their vehicles as weapons against immigration officers. 

But independent video has often contradicted that narrative. 

In at least five cases DHS brought, charges were dismissed after the department accused U.S. citizens and immigrants shot by federal agents as being the aggressors. 

In August 2025, Francisco Longoria, a Mexican national, was driving his vehicle in San Bernardino, California, when federal immigration agents in unmarked cars tried to pull him over. He fled and the agents fired upon him.

The Department of Justice charged him with attempting to harm agents, but prosecutors couldn’t defend the DHS actions and charges were dismissed. Longoria was not injured.

Marimar Martinez was labeled a domestic terrorist by DHS and indicted after she was shot in her car five times by Border Patrol agents in October 2025, during the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration deportation campaign in Chicago. DOJ dropped its charges against Martinez, a U.S. citizen, after the Trump administration accused her of using her car as a weapon.

When the president initially directed immigration agents to the nation’s capitol, Phillip M. Brown, a U.S. citizen, was pulled over by law enforcement, including an immigration officer who shot into his vehicle. During the October 2025 shooting, Brown was not injured, but charged with fleeing from law enforcement. The U.S. Attorney’s Office declined to prosecute the case.

During the Trump administration’s aggressive deportation drive in Minneapolis in January, that left two U.S. citizens dead, a Venezuelan immigrant, Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis was shot by a federal agent while in his home. DHS accused Cesar Sosa-Celis of striking an immigration officer with a broom handle, but Cesar Sosa-Celis denied it and surveillance video contracted the federal government’s claim.

The immigration agent who shot Cesar Sosa-Celis was prosecuted by local Minnesota officials and arrested in May for falsely reporting a crime and for assault.

In Houston, on July 7, ICE officers killed 52-year-old Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, saying he tried to run over agents as has been the case in other incidents.

Salgado Araujo was driving several other people to work that morning when immigration officers approached his van. He was not considered a person of interest, DHS has stated.

The FBI has sought a search warrant to seize plastic bags with “crystal-like substances,” to test for methamphetamine, according to the Texas Tribune. One of the lawyers representing Salgado Araujo’s brother, who was in the van during the shooting, said it was granulated salt.

A grim beginning to the year

The most people shot by federal immigration agents was in January.  Three of the five people shot by ICE and Border Patrol officers were in Minnesota, with two of them fatalities. 

The two deaths were in Minneapolis, where the Trump administration conducted an aggressive deportation campaign that targeted the city, which has a high Somali refugee population. 

That month, federal immigration agents shot and killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti, both U.S. citizens, and shot and wounded Cesar Sosa-Celis. 

Good was killed while in her vehicle, which then DHS Secretary Kristi Noem labeled her as a domestic terrorist. DHS accused Good of using her SUV as a weapon, but independent video did not uphold that allegation.

A week later, federal immigration officers shot and killed intensive care unit nurse Pretti, who was recording agents on his phone and helping a woman who was pushed down by them. Noem again labeled him a domestic terrorist and said he was attacking agents, but multiple videos taken from different angles do not show that.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump directed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to resume traffic stops Wednesday, reversing a one-day pause on the policy after officers killed two immigrants who were in their vehicles in Texas and Maine.

In a post to social media, Trump called the practice of federal immigration officers conducting enforcement during traffic stops “one of I.C.E.’s most important and effective” tools. 

The Trump administration’s aggressive deportation campaign has led to an uptick in people killed by immigration officers, including at traffic stops.  

On Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security ordered all federal immigration officers to pause vehicle-related enforcement after the killings of 52-year-old Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Houston on July 7 and 25-year-old Johan Sebastián in Biddeford, Maine, on Monday. 

Both men were stopped in their vehicles when federal immigration officers shot and killed them. Neither was an initial target of immigration enforcement, DHS said.

Monday’s shooting prompted a demand from Maine’s Republican Sen. Susan Collins, who is in the midst of a tight reelection race, for ICE to “cease all non-urgent vehicle stops.”

Trump said Democrats wanted the pause on immigration enforcement at traffic stops.

“The Radical Left Dumocrats would like to see this done, but it won’t happen on my watch,” he said. “I.C.E., be judicious, fair and smart, and go back and do your very important job.”

The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to detailed questions about the president’s directive. White House spokespeople did not immediately respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment.

Congress calls for action

Monday’s shooting sparked calls for action among lawmakers, with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus advocating for dismantling of ICE and Maine’s congressional delegation pressing an independent watchdog to conduct an expedited investigation.

“Given the gravity of the situation and the understandable anxiety within the Biddeford community, we urge you to prioritize this investigation,” the Maine delegation wrote to DHS’s Office of Inspector General. 

“Timely and factual answers will be critical to providing closure for the grieving community and ensuring that federal law enforcement operations are conducted safely, lawfully, and in a manner that respects public safety.”

Collins and independent Sen. Angus King also requested the Department of Justice collaborate with state and local law enforcement authorities to investigate the fatal shooting.

International outrage

Sebastián was a Colombian immigrant with legal work authorization. Salgado Araujo was a Mexican national who had been in the United States for decades and was the father of three U.S. citizen children.

Both of their killings sparked outrage in their communities, as well as from the leaders of Mexico and Colombia.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro called Sebastián’s death, “a murder of a Colombian, a Latin American, at the hands of the US government.”

In a social media post written in Spanish, Petro said he expects to hear from Trump about the shooting. 

“They killed him for believing him to be an inferior being without rights, and as a person, he had all the rights conferred on a human being simply for being born, and he was a citizen with rights in the US,” he said. 

He added that “ICE is an organization that must be denounced on a worldwide scale.”

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum announced Monday that her government will file complaints to the Justice Department relating not only to Salgado Araujo’s death, but in states where Mexican nationals have died in U.S. federal detention centers or during immigration enforcement.

“I don’t think this situation appears acceptable to anyone,” she said, according to the Texas Tribune. “This is an issue for all Mexicans.”

 

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republicans released their latest budget resolution Wednesday, the first step in a long and complicated process that could allow Congress to approve a third party-line bill. 

The 47-page document, once adopted by both chambers, would send instructions to four House committees to draft bills that would be bundled into a roughly $95 billion package. 

• The Administration Committee could provide a maximum of $10 billion that would likely create a grant program for states that institute voter identification requirements.
• The Agriculture Committee would be able to spend no more than $12 billion for farm aid.
• The Armed Services Committee could write a bill that gives the Defense Department a maximum of $60 billion to account for increased costs related to the war with Iran and other military actions taken by the Trump administration. 
• The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence would be able to approve up to $13 billion in new spending.

House floor votes as soon as next week

The House Budget Committee is scheduled to debate and vote on the budget resolution Thursday. It’s possible that is followed by floor debate and a vote to send the resolution to the Senate as soon as next week. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., could hold a floor vote on the budget resolution in that chamber before its lawmakers depart for their August recess, though it wasn’t immediately clear Wednesday whether there is enough support among GOP senators to approve the measure. 

Thune has been skeptical about using for a third time the complex budget reconciliation process the party used to enact its “big, beautiful” law last year and provide $70 billion in additional spending for immigration enforcement earlier this year. 

Senate debate on the budget resolution is significantly different than in the House. It requires a marathon amendment voting session that typically lasts overnight and leads to tough votes for Republican senators facing reelection this November. By contrast, House floor debate likely won’t include votes on any amendments. 

Elections and defense

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., posted to social media shortly after the budget resolution was released that the reconciliation process would provide a way for Congress to change how elections work and appropriate more funding for defense. 

“Safeguarding American elections and strengthening our national defense are the most basic responsibilities of Congress and are supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans,” Johnson wrote, before criticizing Democrats for voting against Republicans’ SAVE America Act.

It’s unlikely Republicans will be able to include the full text of that bill, which would require Americans to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote and a photo ID to cast a ballot, given the rules of the budget reconciliation process. 

Every provision in the package must have an impact on federal spending, revenue, or the debt that isn’t deemed “merely incidental” by the Senate parliamentarian.

House Budget Committee ranking member Brendan Boyle, D-Pa., wrote in a statement he plans “to fight like hell to make sure taxpayer dollars are being used to lower costs and make life better for American families, not to bankroll Trump’s giveaways to billionaires and endless wars overseas.”

“Republicans have already made life worse for American families and added trillions to the national debt,” Boyle wrote. “Now, this ‘America Last’ budget would add tens of billions more to the national debt to fund the most unpopular war in American history.” 

WASHINGTON — The Department of Homeland Security Tuesday ordered U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to cease vehicle-related enforcement stops, following the deadly shootings of two men in their vehicles, according to multiple media reports. 

A DHS spokesperson did not respond directly to States Newsroom’s question about what was characterized in some reports as a new nationwide order. 

“We are always evaluating our procedures to keep our officers safe and criminals off our streets,” the spokesperson said. “We will not disclose or discuss law enforcement tactics.”

U.S. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican who is up for reelection in one of the nation’s most closely watched races, said on social media Tuesday that she spoke with Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin on Monday night and “urged him to cease all non-urgent vehicle stops.” ICE officers killed a 26-year-old Colombian man with legal status in his vehicle in Biddeford, Maine, on Monday.

As the Trump administration aims to carry out mass deportations, aggressive enforcement has occurred across the interior of the country, with at least 21 shootings involving federal immigration agents, even before Maine. At least 10 of those incidents prior to Maine have been deadly, according to an investigation by the Guardian.

Monday’s shooting in Maine, coupled with another by federal immigration officers who on July 7 killed 52-year-old Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, a Mexican national, during a traffic stop in Houston, Texas, renewed congressional anger and demand for answers. 

Neither man was an initial person of interest for immigration enforcement, DHS stated.

Hispanic Caucus calls for abolishing ICE

On Tuesday, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus condemned federal immigration agents for the recent shootings, calling for congressional oversight and for the dismantling of ICE.

“An agency that acts as though it is above the law cannot be reformed at the margins,” said New York Democrat Nydia Velázquez. “You cannot put a Band-Aid on a system that is fundamentally broken. We must abolish ICE.”

“Here we are again, a brown man, a Latino, killed,” said the chair of the Hispanic Caucus, Rep. Adriano Espaillat of New York.

Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus said the recent killings are a pattern with immigration enforcement under the Trump administration, coupled with conflicting statements given by the Department of Homeland Security and independent video recordings of the incidents. 

The department came under intense scrutiny after federal immigration officers shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in January, Renee Good and Alex Pretti. Minnesota prosecutors announced Monday that they started receiving evidence from the federal government about their killings after the Trump administration initially refused to turn over evidence to local law enforcement. 

Espaillat said members of the Hispanic Caucus will hold a field hearing in Houston on July 24 with House Democrats on the Homeland Security Committee. Democrats plan to focus the hearing on the killing of Salgado Araujo, a construction worker, husband and father of three U.S. citizen children. 

ICE to get billions

Texas Democrat Joaquin Castro said that Congress must not only use its power of subpoena to conduct oversight, but must freeze hiring at ICE and refuse to fund the agency. 

Congressional Republicans funded ICE and Border Patrol with $70 billion until September 2029 through a special legislative process after Democrats refused to fund DHS for fiscal year 2026. 

Additionally, congressional Republicans last year approved roughly $170 billion for DHS to conduct immigration enforcement and hire more ICE and Border Patrol agents.

“We have to disband ICE in this Congress,” Castro said. “Otherwise, these killings will continue. There will be another victim in a few days or a few weeks.” 

Texas Democratic Rep. Sylvia Garcia said she has a meeting with Homeland Security’s Mullin this week, where she plans to ask questions related to the Texas and Maine shootings. 

“This is a human life,” she said of Salgado Araujo. “He was not the target. He had no criminal record. He may not even be the right man. Those are very troubling questions for everybody.”

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a July 2 panel decision requiring bond hearings for immigrants held under the Trump administration’s mandatory detention policy. 

For now, that means many immigration prisoners from all over the country can still be held indefinitely without bond in some of the nation’s largest detention centers in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. The Trump administration policy requires detention without bond for an immigrant who crossed the border illegally, no matter how long they’ve been here. 

The appeals court will rehear the case in September.

The Trump administration policy has already been disregarded by many judges, even Trump appointees in the 5th Circuit states, who have freed immigrants or ordered bond hearings despite the policy. 

Other appeals courts have struck down the policy as unconstitutional. An exception is the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has upheld the detention policy, covering centers in seven states: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. 

Some judges in the 5th Circuit had already ordered bond hearings or releases based on the July 2 ruling. The Supreme Court has agreed to take up a related case and resolve the conflict in its next session starting in October. 

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

The Justice Department rejected Milwaukee’s attempts to prohibit immigration agents from wearing masks in a Friday letter to Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson and City Attorney Evan Goyke. “We write to seek assurances that neither your offices, the Milwaukee Police Department, nor any other entity in Milwaukee plans to enforce Milwaukee Code ordinances…(“Mask Ban” or “Ordinance”) against federal law enforcement officers,” the letter, signed by Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate and U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Brad Schimel, states. “The enforcement of such a law would be unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause.”

The Supremacy Clause in Article VI  of the United States Constitution holds that federal law overrides state and local laws. “Unfortunately, some states and localities have seemingly forgotten this bedrock principle of American law, passing so-called ‘sanctuary policies’ to impede federal immigration enforcement and going so far as to even directly regulate federal law enforcement in the performance of their official duties, ” the letter states. “This is precisely what Milwaukee has done with its Mask Ban.”

Over recent weeks, as immigration arrests have escalated, Milwaukee officials developed a package of city ordinances designed to regulate the behavior of federal agents in the city. One of those ordinances prohibits  agents from wearing masks, with elected leaders and advocates arguing that residents should not be confronted by masked men in unmarked cars and without badges or other clear proof that they are law enforcement officers. 

The letter states that agents require the now notorious masks, which cover the entire face and are often paired with dark sunglasses and caps, to prevent the public from identifying them and then harassing them or their families. “Some doxxing and harassment incidents have resulted in federal charges,” the letter states. “The modification of uniforms to prevent identification also prevents suspects from identifying officers and taking preemptive actions to evade apprehension or obstruct enforcement efforts.” 

The letter cites a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) press release which claimed that immigration officers have faced an 8000% increase in death threats against them and their families. Compelling federal immigration agents to be identified like any other law enforcement officer “potentially exposes federal officers to enforcement against them in the performance of their federal duties, chilling their ability to perform those duties,” the letter states. “And it raises the specter of a confrontation between local and federal law enforcement.”

The letter blasts  Johnson, saying that the mayor “has deplorably compared our brave federal agents enforcing federal law to the ‘Gestapo.’” It demanded an assurance from city officials that they will not enforce the mask ban by July 17. 

Johnson is among many local officials in Milwaukee and across the country who have denounced the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, especially after agents killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti during the ICE surge in Minneapolis. Recently, ICE officers shot and killed a Mexican man in Houston, Texas, who had lived in the United States for 35 years, working to send his three U.S.-born sons to college. The man, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, had no criminal record, and his family is demanding an independent probe, saying the federal government’s charge that he tried to drive his car into ICE agents is false. 

This week U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore joined Mayor Johnson, state Sen. Tim Carpenter (D-Milwaukee), state Rep. Sylvia Ortiz-Velez (D-Milwaukee), and other elected and community leaders in denouncing the surge in immigration arrests in Milwaukee with 57  people apprehended over three days. One of the people agents arrested, who was later released, described agents insulting and threatening him and his fiance after having followed them in unmarked vehicles. The arrests led to a protest through Milwaukee’s South Side last week.

Other residents also witnessed or filmed violent arrests, some of which involved parents violently dragged from their cars in front of their young children, who remain traumatized from the experiences, local advocates said. In those encounters, witnesses were unable to identify the agents. The targeted immigration arrest and eventual release earlier this year of Salah Sarsour, president of Milwaukee’s Islamic Society — which a federal judge ruled involved First Amendment retaliation against Sarsour by federal agencies — is also still fresh in the city’s memory. 

Milwaukee’s mask ordinance came out of meetings of the  Common Council and County Board of Supervisors last winter, as Wisconsinites watched on their phones, computers, and television sets the broad-daylight killings of Good and Pretti in Minnesota, as residents organized against the so-called Operation: Metro Surge. Agents were found to have lied about the events surrounding a third, non-fatal shooting in Minnesota, Homeland Security officials admitted in February. Concern was high, town halls were filled with people worried about their communities and wanting elected officials to do something about it, even if it later got struck down in court, Ald. Alex Brower said at the time. 

It’s unclear how local officials will respond to the letter from the federal government. The city attorney’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

A report published earlier this year by the University of Wisconsin Law School’s State Democracy Research Initiative noted that “courts and commentators have long pondered and debated the question of when and how state and local governments can regulate federal officers.” Local efforts to prevent agents from wearing masks “highlight unanswered questions in the Supremacy Clause and Intergovernmental Immunity doctrines,” the report states. “How should courts determine what actions are ‘authorized’ by federal law? When is something necessary and proper to the fulfillment of federal duties? Where is the line between state-laws that incidentally burden the federal government and those that directly regulate it? These are the questions that will be sorted out in court. While existing doctrine gives opponents of these laws ample grounds to challenge them, it also offers proponents a variety of cogent defenses.”

A spokesperson for Johnson said in an email that the mayor maintains that “some actions and behavior of Federal immigration agents have been inappropriate and dangerous.” The spokesperson added, “Federal agents are undermining the trust our residents have with their aggressive enforcement efforts.”

 

WASHINGTON — U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services on Friday postponed the date that immigrants from seven countries affected by disaster and violence can legally work in the country, extending a deadline that was at odds with federal court orders not yet aligned with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that paved the way for quick deportations.

The Department of Homeland Security agency issued new guidance to employers saying work authorization for hundreds of thousands of immigrants with Temporary Protected Status impacted by a recent Supreme Court decision would expire in one to two weeks, instead of Friday.

The agency said Haitians with TPS will have valid work authorization until July 24, while nationals of Burma, Ethiopia, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria and Yemen with TPS will have it until July 17.

The decision came hours before immigrants hailing from those countries were set to lose their work authorizations under earlier USCIS guidance.

The Supreme Court ruled June 25 that the Trump administration could move forward with a plan to end TPS for immigrants from Haiti and Syria, even while the lower courts continue hearing legal challenges. 

The conservative justices found the Trump administration’s decision to end TPS was not subject to judicial review, impacting several other cases challenging the termination of humanitarian protections.

But the lower courts had not aligned their cases with the Supreme Court order by Friday, leaving in place, for now, their orders forbidding deportation.

Typically, decisions from the high court go into effect 32 days after a ruling. USCIS jumped ahead of that schedule with its July 1 guidance. The July 24 expiration date is still within 32 days of the court decision and could be further delayed.

Trump and asylum

During his second term, President Donald Trump has ended TPS for about 1 million immigrants who were initially granted humanitarian protections because they hail from countries deemed too dangerous to return. 

Federal judges are still hearing arguments about if the Trump administration’s decision to end TPS was based on discriminatory practices, such as race or country of origin. 

But the 6-3 conservative Supreme Court majority did not find that immigrants challenging their legal protections being revoked were “entitled” to any judicial holds postponing the end of their TPS. 

TPS recipients from Haiti and Syria will have their deportation protections in place until lower courts lift them or unless they have a protected status other than TPS, such as a pending asylum case. 

But not every TPS recipient can apply for asylum. For example, if someone has TPS due to a natural disaster, they are unlikely to meet the criteria for asylum, which is fear of persecution “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”

The Trump administration last year stopped processing asylum cases for immigrants from dozens of countries, including Haiti and Syria, but a federal judge in June struck down that policy. 

DHS has said that it plans to deport those who have lost TPS following the Supreme Court’s decision.

So far, the administration has declined to renew protections for 14 countries under TPS. The remaining countries with TPS are El Salvador, Lebanon and Ukraine. 

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has until Saturday to extend TPS for immigrants from El Salvador, who were the first to receive protections from the program. 

TPS can be renewed on cycles ranging from 6 to 18 months. It does not provide a path to citizenship.

Healthcare crisis

TPS beneficiaries from Haiti make up one of the largest shares of immigrants in the program Congress created in the 1990s.

The states with the largest population of TPS recipients from Haiti are Florida, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Ohio according to the immigration advocacy group fwd.us.

More than 50,000 Haitians with TPS work in the healthcare industry, and lawmakers from both parties have raised concerns about the consequences of such a sudden loss of workers.

New York Republican Rep. Mike Lawler, warned that “immediately shutting off TPS will create a crisis in our hospitals, nursing homes, and in the (intellectual disabilities) community.”

Members of a union that represents healthcare workers along the East Coast gathered in New York City Friday to protest their opposition to work permits ending for TPS recipients and raised concerns that a sudden loss of workers would exacerbate the shortage of caregivers. 

A 2024 report found that nearly half of all nursing homes in the U.S. struggle with staffing shortages. 

“If TPS ends, we will face a caregiver crisis, the likes of which we’ve never seen,” said Andy Cassagnol, the executive vice president of Service Employees International Union Local 1199.

He said the move will worsen staffing shortages in home care settings and nursing homes. 

“This is a cruel, heartless, and inhumane policy that will rip parents away from their children and devastate whole communities,” Cassagnol said of the Supreme Court’s decision. “Imagine seniors and individuals living with disabilities waking up to find their favorite aide is just gone. Maybe someone who is the only familiar face in their lives has disappeared.”

U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley, a Massachusetts Democrat who sponsored a bill in the House that would extend TPS for Haiti for three years, said in a statement following the Supreme Court’s decision that the “implications of this ruling are nothing short of catastrophic.”

Haitians allege racism

But even if Pressley’s bill managed to garner 60 votes in the Senate, it’s unlikely that Trump would sign the measure after he vowed on the campaign trail to end TPS for Haitians and used pejorative language to describe Haiti and its people. 

The president’s words regarding Haiti have been central to TPS recipients’ claims that the decision to end protections was due to racism, not an evaluation of improved country conditions.  

The conservative majority of the Supreme Court noted equal protection arguments were unlikely to prevail in the lower courts. 

“None of the cited statements by either the President or the Secretary was overtly racial, and in substance all expressed policy views that could rest on race-neutral justifications,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.