Walworth County commissioner says he was forced out after challenging ICE warrant

(WISCONSIN) A fresh dispute over a claimed forced exit of a Walworth County court commissioner after questioning an ICE warrant has spilled into public view, even as current records name no commissioner and confirm no resignation. As of August 21, 2025, the allegation sits inside a broader clash over immigration enforcement in Wisconsin courthouses, intensified by the April 2025 arrest of Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan, who was charged by the FBI with allegedly helping a defendant avoid Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents carrying only an administrative, not judicial, warrant. The case has jolted judges, court staff, sheriffs, and immigrant families across the state.

Judge Dugan’s arrest—the first known case of its kind in Wisconsin—has become a flashpoint for judicial independence and immigrant safety inside court buildings. Advocates say the action sends a message that even questioning the scope of an ICE warrant could carry personal risk for judicial officers. Court officials describe a chilling effect: staff weigh every hallway interaction and every after-hearing moment while ICE waits outside.

Administrative vs. judicial warrants and detainers

At the heart of these disputes is a simple divide: an administrative ICE warrant is signed by a federal immigration officer, while a judicial warrant is approved by a judge. An ICE “detainer” is a request to a local jail to hold a person for up to 48 hours after they would otherwise be released so ICE can assume custody.

• These detainers often flow from the federal Secure Communities program, which checks local booking data against federal databases.
• For DHS information on Secure Communities, see the Department of Homeland Security’s official page: https://www.dhs.gov/secure-communities.

From January through June 2025, ICE issued more than 1,000 detainer requests to Wisconsin law enforcement, with a rising share based on administrative, not judicial, warrants. Several sheriffs confirmed they do not require a judicial warrant to honor ICE’s requests. This patchwork approach means people may face different outcomes depending on the county in which they are booked.

Legislative and fiscal pressures

On the legislative front, Republicans introduced AB-24 in February 2025. The bill would:

• Require sheriffs to report immigrants who lack permanent legal status.
• Require sheriffs to comply with federal detainer requests or risk losing state funding — effectively removing local discretion.

Gov. Tony Evers has said he would likely veto the measure if it reaches his desk. Rep. Tyler August (R-Walworth) co-authored the bill and tied his support to a stricter federal return policy under President Trump, signaling potential alignment between state and federal enforcement if lawmakers can overcome a veto.

Money also shapes these choices:

• Wisconsin agencies received more than $7 million in federal State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) funds between 2021 and 2024 for sharing jail data on suspected undocumented people.
• In 2025, counties such as Brown and Sauk expanded direct contracts with ICE covering detention and transport—agreements that can turn local jails into steady pipelines to federal custody.

These financial incentives give counties a practical reason to cooperate with ICE, regardless of legal or constitutional concerns.

County-level policy differences

Policy divides remain stark at the county level:

• Milwaukee and Dane counties have adopted rules that limit compliance with detainers.
• Several other sheriffs continue to honor ICE requests based on internal policies or third-party templates.

The result is an uneven map: courthouse entrances and jail doors open and close on different terms across the state, even as the same federal agency is involved in many cases.

Rising courthouse tensions and the Dugan case

The Dugan case has sharpened fears among judges and commissioners about speaking up in the moment—especially when ICE appears without a judicial warrant. Supporters of Judge Dugan argue that courtroom integrity and due process demand space for neutral decision-making free from federal pressure. Critics contend that helping a person avoid immigration agents—even briefly—crosses a line.

The ACLU of Wisconsin warns the growing overlap between local law enforcement and ICE risks constitutional violations and erodes public trust, particularly when detainers are honored without a judge’s sign-off.

The Walworth County claim—that a commissioner was forced out after questioning an ICE warrant—has fueled this anxiety. While current records list no named official or confirmed resignation, the allegation illustrates how tense courthouse hallways have become. According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the wider fallout is clear: court participation drops when people fear that civil or criminal hearings could lead to an immigration hold.

Impact on immigrant communities and court participation

Immigrant communities are feeling the squeeze:

• Lawyers report clients skipping court dates.
• Victims hesitate to seek restraining orders.
• Witnesses fear appearing at county courthouses.

Many attribute this behavior to the surge in administrative warrants and increased use of detainers. The message spreading through neighborhoods is stark: a routine court visit can turn into a long hold for ICE.

Law enforcement remains split:

• Some sheriffs argue cooperation improves public safety by ensuring those flagged by ICE are not released into the community.
• Others, especially in larger counties, resist detainers unless a judge approves the hold, citing court rulings that such detainers may violate the Fourth Amendment.

This divide—between legal risk and enforcement goals—is now central to the AB-24 debate.

How detainers move from booking to transfer

1. Arrest and booking: Local officers book a person into jail.
2. Status check: Booking data goes to federal databases through the Secure Communities program.
3. Detainer issued: ICE sends an administrative detainer request asking the jail to hold the person for up to 48 hours after local release time.
4. Sheriff decision: Under current law, sheriffs choose whether to honor or decline the detainer.
5. Data reporting: Agencies can report to ICE and seek SCAAP reimbursement.
6. Transfer to ICE: If the jail honors the detainer, custody shifts to ICE.

If AB-24 becomes law, step 4 would flip from discretion to duty: sheriffs would have to comply or face funding penalties. The governor’s veto threat sets up a likely showdown, followed by possible court challenges if the bill passes.

Financial incentives and county contracts create a de facto jail-to-deportation pipeline, critics say, where people can be pulled into federal custody based on foreign birth rather than criminal risk.

Walworth County as a microcosm

Back in Walworth County, political and legal stakes are high. The county is home to a top supporter of AB-24, and local courtrooms have become symbolic battlegrounds over who controls the moment when a hearing ends and an immigration hold begins. Even without a named commissioner tied to a confirmed resignation, the allegation underscores how a single ICE warrant can reshape an entire day inside a courthouse.

For families, practical questions persist:

• Will a courthouse visit trigger a detainer?
• Will the sheriff require a judge’s warrant, or only an administrative one?

Those answers vary by county policy today—and could be fixed by statute tomorrow. For judges and commissioners, the Dugan case is a cautionary tale about how fast a routine matter can become federal, with personal stakes for anyone who challenges the limits of ICE authority inside court walls.

What’s next

What happens next will hinge on:

• Votes in Madison over AB-24,
• A likely veto by Gov. Evers, and
• Whether lawmakers can muster the numbers to override that veto.

In the meantime, the split across Wisconsin counties continues, the flow of detainers grows, and the risk calculus for immigrants standing at courthouse doors keeps shifting—one county policy, one ICE warrant, and one high-stakes case at a time.