ICE Detains Head of Wisconsin's Largest Muslim Organization, Reviving Decades-Old Allegations and First Amendment Fears

On March 30, 2026, ten federal agents pulled over Salah Sarsour as he left his Milwaukee home, placed him in custody, and transported him across state lines — first to a facility in Illinois, then to a federal detention center in Indiana [1]. Sarsour, 53, is the president of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee, the largest Muslim organization in Wisconsin. He has lived in the United States as a lawful permanent resident since 1993 [2]. His wife of 34 years and all six of their children are U.S. citizens [3].

The Department of Homeland Security called him "a terrorist" [4]. His defenders called the arrest an unconstitutional act of political retaliation [5]. The truth, as with most cases at the intersection of immigration law and national security claims, is more contested than either side's framing suggests.

What the Government Alleges

DHS Acting Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis stated publicly that "Salah Salem Sarsour is a terrorist convicted for throwing Molotov cocktails at the homes of Israeli armed forces" [4]. The deportation documents cite convictions from Sarsour's time as a teenager in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, including charges related to throwing Molotov cocktails and illegally attempting to possess weapons and ammunition [4].

The government's case rests on two pillars. First, DHS alleges that Sarsour lied on his green card application to obtain legal status. According to the agency, his initial immigrant visa application was denied because of the Israeli conviction, but he ultimately entered the United States in 1993 as a conditional resident during the Clinton administration and became a green card holder in 1998 after, DHS claims, misrepresenting his history on the application [4].

Second, the government has raised allegations linking Sarsour to Hamas fundraising. A November 2001 FBI Action Memorandum named Salah Sarsour and his brother Imad as Hamas fundraisers operating through the Holy Land Foundation (HLF), which was later convicted in what prosecutors called the largest terror-financing case in U.S. history [6]. The FBI memo alleged that the Sarsour brothers passed money in $1,000 and $2,000 increments to a Hamas operative named Adel Awadallah through their Milwaukee furniture store [6]. Sarsour reportedly served an eight-month prison sentence in Israel in 1995 for supporting Hamas, where he is alleged to have met Awadallah [6].

ICE stated: "This criminal and terrorist will remain in ICE custody pending removal proceedings" [4].

What the Defense Says

The Islamic Society of Milwaukee disputes the government's account directly. The organization maintains that Sarsour disclosed his Israeli arrests during his original visa interview, which was recorded, and that his application was "fully vetted by the US government" at the time of his immigration [2]. If accurate, this undercuts the allegation of fraud on the application — though the discrepancy between these accounts has not been resolved in court.

Sarsour's legal team, led by the Muslim Legal Fund of America (MLFA), argues the timing and circumstances of the arrest point to political motivation rather than legitimate enforcement. MLFA stated: "It is difficult to believe that DHS's position now is not rooted in a violation of his First Amendment right to speak about the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank" [5].

Within 24 hours of the detention, MLFA and its legal partners filed a writ of habeas corpus — a legal action demanding the government justify a person's imprisonment — alongside a request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) [5]. Sarsour's initial Master Calendar Hearing, the first step in immigration removal proceedings, is scheduled for April 13, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. CT in Chicago immigration court [3].

A central question in the defense is one of timing: if the government had this information since at least 2001, when the FBI memo was written, why was Sarsour allowed to remain in the country for 25 additional years? Sarsour was never charged with a crime in the United States. He was never named as a defendant in the Holy Land Foundation prosecution. The FBI memo named him, but no federal action followed — until now.

The Political Response

Ten Muslim civil rights organizations issued a joint letter denouncing the arrest, co-signed by CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations), MLFA, and the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations [1]. The letter stated: "We must be clear that Salah is being targeted on the basis of his Palestinian and Muslim background, and his advocacy for Palestinian rights" [1]. The groups characterized the administration as "weaponizing the U.S. justice system to advance the interests of a foreign state, Israel" [1].

Milwaukee Alderpersons JoCasta Zamarripa and Alex Bower issued a joint statement calling the detention "an illegal detention of a longtime permanent U.S. resident" and demanded Sarsour's immediate release [7]. They condemned federal ICE agents for coming into their community to "unlawfully detain a grandfather, a faith leader, a Wisconsinite" [7].

Wisconsin State Senator Chris Larson noted that the federal government had not publicly offered reasons for the arrest at the time of his statement [1].

An online fundraising campaign for Sarsour's legal defense raised more than $35,500 within days [1].

The practical leverage these local officials hold over federal ICE operations is, however, limited. Milwaukee's Common Council has passed "ICE Out" legislation restricting city employee cooperation with federal immigration agents [8], but ICE operates under federal authority and is not bound by municipal policy. Local governments can refuse to honor detainer requests, restrict access to city facilities, and decline to share information, but they cannot prevent ICE from conducting arrests on public streets or at residences.

A Pattern of Targeting — or Legitimate Enforcement?

Sarsour's arrest does not exist in isolation. Since early 2025, the Trump administration has detained multiple Palestinian advocates and pro-Palestinian activists under immigration authority. The most prominent case involves Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate student and lawful permanent resident arrested by ICE on March 8, 2025 [9]. The administration also targeted Rumeysa Ozturk, a Tufts University student, and Mohsen Mahdawi, another Columbia student [10].

Unsealed court records in those cases revealed that the government's internal justifications were based entirely on protected speech. In Khalil's case, officials admitted they were "not aware of any prior arrests or citations for Khalil regarding unlawful activity" and had "not identified any alternative grounds for removability," such as material support to terrorist organizations [10]. His "actions" consisted of "pro-Palestinian protests, including serving as the lead negotiator of an encampment at Columbia in April 2024" [10].

In Ozturk's case, her visa revocation was based "solely on her co-authorship of an op-ed" criticizing university investment policies regarding Israel [10].

A March 15, 2025 government memo acknowledged: "Given the potential that a court may consider [Mahdawi's] actions inextricably tied to speech protected under the First Amendment, it is likely that courts will closely scrutinize the basis for this determination" [10].

A federal district court held in late September 2025 that targeting noncitizens for deportation based on protected speech violated the First Amendment [10].

The government's case against Sarsour differs from these student activist cases in one significant respect: DHS has cited specific criminal convictions (albeit from decades ago in a foreign country) and alleged immigration fraud, rather than relying solely on the foreign-policy deportation power used against Khalil and others. Supporters of the enforcement action point to the FBI memo, the Israeli convictions, and Sarsour's role as a national board member of American Muslims for Palestine as evidence that this is a legitimate national security case, not political targeting [6].

The Legal Framework: Speech, Immigration, and the First Amendment

U.S. law on whether political speech can be used as a factor in immigration enforcement is unsettled, but the governing precedent tilts toward the government.

In Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (1999), the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that statutory restrictions on judicial review prevent noncitizens from raising First Amendment selective-enforcement claims as a defense to deportation proceedings [11]. The case involved eight Palestinians and a Kenyan facing deportation for their association with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine — none of whom had been charged with any crime [11]. Lower courts had found unconstitutional selective prosecution, but the Supreme Court reversed, holding that immigrants have no constitutional right to raise a selective enforcement claim against immigration officials absent evidence of "outrageous" discrimination [11].

This precedent gives the executive branch broad discretion in choosing whom to deport. However, the September 2025 federal district court ruling in the Khalil-related litigation pushed back against this framework, finding that the government cannot use constitutionally protected speech as the sole basis for deportation [10]. That ruling is likely to face appellate review.

The Trump administration has also invoked a rarely used provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that gives the Secretary of State power to remove any noncitizen whose presence is deemed to have "adverse foreign policy consequences" [9]. This provision, dating to 1952, had been used sparingly before the current wave of cases.

ICE Enforcement in Wisconsin: The Data

Sarsour's arrest occurred against a backdrop of increased ICE activity in Wisconsin, though the state has seen more modest enforcement surges than its neighbors.

ICE arrests in Wisconsin rose 22% between January and July 2025 compared to the same period in 2024, climbing from roughly 850 to over 1,020 arrests [12]. By comparison, Illinois saw a 46% increase, Minnesota 95%, and Michigan 152% during the same period [12].

Source: Wisconsin Examiner / ICE ERO Data

Data as of Apr 2, 2026CSV

The composition of arrests has also shifted. In Wisconsin, 83% of those arrested by ICE in 2025 had prior criminal convictions or pending charges, compared to 70% nationally [12] [13]. Put differently, nearly 30% of ICE arrests nationwide involved people with no criminal history, versus 17% in Wisconsin [13].

Source: Wisconsin Examiner / FactCheck.org

Data as of Jan 1, 2026CSV

Milwaukee's DHS office downtown was the single busiest arrest location in Wisconsin, with at least 107 people detained there between January and mid-October 2025. Three-quarters of those arrested at that specific location had no pending criminal charges or past convictions — a figure starkly different from the statewide average [14].

ICE's tactics have also evolved. Reporting by Wisconsin Watch documented that agents in Milwaukee have increasingly arrested asylum seekers — people with active legal cases — rather than focusing exclusively on individuals with final deportation orders or criminal records [14].

The Legal Road Ahead

Sarsour faces removal proceedings in Chicago immigration court, one of the most backlogged jurisdictions in the country. Chicago had approximately 193,000 pending cases as of March 2025 [15]. Nationally, the immigration court backlog reached 1.7 million cases by February 2026, the highest ever recorded [15]. Average wait times from initial filing to final disposition stretched to nearly 900 days — roughly two and a half years — with asylum cases averaging 4.3 years [15].

Source: TRAC Immigration / EOIR

Data as of Feb 1, 2026CSV

Sarsour's legal team can pursue several avenues. The habeas corpus petition already filed challenges the legality of the detention itself. In removal proceedings, Sarsour could seek a bond hearing to argue for release while his case proceeds, assert claims for withholding of removal (which bars deportation to a country where someone faces persecution), or challenge the factual basis of the fraud allegation.

Whether Sarsour is eligible for bond depends on whether the government classifies him as a mandatory detention case under the "material support for terrorism" provisions of immigration law, which would deny him a bond hearing entirely. If the government proceeds under the fraud theory alone, bond eligibility is more likely.

The case is further complicated by the question of where Sarsour would be deported to. As a Palestinian born in the West Bank, deportation raises practical and legal questions about which country would accept him and whether return would expose him to persecution — potential grounds for withholding of removal.

Unanswered Questions

Several critical facts remain unresolved. The government has not explained why it waited decades to act on information it has held since at least 2001. The Islamic Society's claim that Sarsour disclosed his Israeli arrests during his original visa interview has not been adjudicated. No public evidence has emerged that Sarsour was ever charged, indicted, or named as a co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation prosecution, despite the FBI memo. And ICE does not publish demographic data that would allow independent verification of whether Palestinian, Arab, or Muslim noncitizens are being detained at disproportionate rates since October 7, 2023.

What is clear is that Sarsour's case sits at the convergence of multiple contested legal and political fault lines: the scope of executive immigration power, the First Amendment rights of noncitizens, the legacy of post-9/11 counterterrorism investigations, and the current administration's posture toward Palestinian advocacy. His April 13 hearing in Chicago will begin — but almost certainly not conclude — the process of sorting those questions out.