Voces de la Frontera, Inc. v. David A. Clarke, Jr.
2017 WI 16
| Wis. | 2017Background
- Voces de la Frontera requested copies of ICE Form I-247 immigration detainer forms that Milwaukee County Sheriff had received since November 2014; the Sheriff initially produced redacted forms and later some nationality fields unredacted.
- Voces filed for a writ of mandamus; the circuit court ordered production of unredacted I-247 forms after applying the public-interest balancing test in favor of disclosure.
- The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court, holding that no statutory exemption applied and the Sheriff failed to show the public interest favored nondisclosure.
- The Sheriff appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, arguing the I-247 forms are statutorily exempt under Wis. Stat. § 19.36 because federal regulation 8 C.F.R. § 236.6 bars disclosure.
- The Supreme Court examined the text and purpose of 8 C.F.R. § 236.6, including its Federal Register preamble, and concluded the regulation protects all information in I-247 forms (regardless of whether the subject is presently in federal custody).
- The Court held that because federal law (8 C.F.R. § 236.6) bars disclosure, Wis. Stat. § 19.36(1)-(2) makes the forms statutorily exempt under Wisconsin law and therefore reversed the court of appeals and quashed the mandamus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether I-247 detainer forms are statutorily exempt from disclosure under Wis. Stat. § 19.36 via 8 C.F.R. § 236.6 | I-247 forms are public records and should be disclosed; no federal exemption applies | 8 C.F.R. § 236.6 prohibits state/local disclosure of information relating to any detainee identified in I-247 forms, so Wis. Stat. § 19.36(1)-(2) bar release | Held: Forms are statutorily exempt because 8 C.F.R. § 236.6 precludes release, bringing them within Wis. Stat. § 19.36(1)-(2) |
| Whether 8 C.F.R. § 236.6 applies only when the individual is in federal custody (temporal limitation) | (Voces) The regulation does not prohibit disclosure of information when the subject is not in federal custody | (Sheriff) The regulation applies broadly to any individual subject to an I-247 detainer regardless of current custody; court of appeals had read a temporal limit into the regulation | Held: 8 C.F.R. § 236.6 is not temporally limited; it applies to information about any individual who is the subject of an I-247, regardless of whether currently in federal custody |
| Whether the public-interest balancing test governs once a statutory exemption applies | Voces: public-interest in oversight favors disclosure | Sheriff: privacy, investigative and law-enforcement concerns favor nondisclosure | Held: Because the Court found a statutory exemption, the balancing test is inapplicable; statutory exemption controls |
| Whether common-law exemptions or redaction obligations required further consideration | Voces: even if some info is sensitive, redactions rather than wholesale withholding should be considered | Sheriff: federal regulation bars disclosure of the information in the forms | Held: Court resolved dispute on statutory-exemption grounds and did not reach common-law exemptions or redaction analysis; treated forms as exempt in full under §19.36(1)-(2) & 8 C.F.R. §236.6 |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Marberry v. Macht, 262 Wis. 2d 720 (2003) (mandamus prerequisites and framework)
- Osborn v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Wisconsin System, 254 Wis. 2d 266 (2002) (standard for de novo review in public-records cases)
- State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cty., 271 Wis. 2d 633 (2004) (statutory interpretation principles)
- Linzmeyer v. Forcey, 254 Wis. 2d 306 (2002) (public-records presumptions and balancing test)
- Commissioner of Correction v. Freedom of Info. Com'n, 52 A.3d 636 (Conn. 2012) (interpreting 8 C.F.R. § 236.6 to bar disclosure of detainee information even after transfer or release)