(The Center Square) – The arrest of a Wisconsin judge could be just the start.

Former Acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director and border czar Tom Homan said  “wait to see what’s coming” when he was asked Thursday what should happen to sanctuary cities and specifically what should occur in Wisconsin, where Gov. Tony Evers and the state Department of Administration sent out a memo asking state employees not to answer questions from federal agents, give access to systems or information, and to call the state Office of Legal Counsel if approached.

“You cannot support what we’re doing and you can support sanctuary cities if that’s what you want to do,” Homan said. “But if you cross that line of impediment or knowingly harboring and concealing an illegal alien, that is a felony. And we are treating it as such.”

A group of 41 Wisconsin Assembly Republicans sent a letter this week to Evers requesting that he rescind the memo.

“As the Trump administration continues its efforts to deport thousands of non-citizens who entered our country illegally during the Biden administration, our caucus believes it is imperative that our laws reflect the need for local law enforcement to comply with these efforts,” the letter said.

The letter also referenced the Friday arrest of Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan on accusations that she helped a defendant who was illegally in the country escape from immigration officials.

Dugan is accused of concealing Eduardo Flores Ruiz, who was previously deported and came back to the U.S., where he was facing charges in Milwaukee of domestic battery and abuse.

Dugan was suspended this week by the Wisconsin Supreme Court after being charged with obstruction of a federal proceeding and concealing an individual to prevent discovery or arrest. The obstruction charge could result in up to a $100,000 fine and a year in prison, while the second concealment charge can result in up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

(The Center Square) − Amid growing concerns nationwide over seafood fraud, the New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Festival has emerged as a rare bright spot in the murky world of shrimp sourcing.

A new round of genetic testing found that nearly every shrimp dish sold at this year’s Jazz Fest was made with genuine U.S. wild-caught shrimp from the Gulf — a striking contrast to most restaurants across the South.

The study, conducted by SeaD Consulting using its RIGHTTest genetic analysis tool, examined 19 shrimp-based dishes from vendors at the 2025 festival.

Of those, 18 were verified to contain authentic Gulf shrimp. Only one dish, from a vendor whose other offerings passed the test, was found to use imported shrimp. The test was funded by the Southern Shrimp Alliance, a national advocacy group for domestic shrimpers.

“This is a huge moment of pride for New Orleans,” said Dave Williams, founder of SeaD Consulting. “We found vendors doing the right thing — not because they had to, but because it matters to them, to the community, and to the culture of this city.”

Unlike restaurants, temporary food vendors in Louisiana are not legally required to disclose whether their shrimp is imported or farm-raised. That makes the Jazz Fest findings even more remarkable: Vendors chose to support the local industry on their own.

The result is a resounding show of solidarity with Louisiana shrimpers, who face steep competition from cheaper imported shrimp, often farmed under questionable labor and environmental conditions.

The vendors found serving wild-caught Gulf shrimp span every corner of the festival grounds — from shrimp bread and gumbo in Food Area One, to Vietnamese shrimp skewers in Heritage Square and shrimp ceviche tostadas in the Cultural Exchange Village.

The timing couldn’t be better for Louisiana’s seafood industry. The inshore shrimping season is about to begin, and the industry is fighting an uphill battle. In other parts of the country, seafood fraud is rampant.

Just weeks before the Jazz Fest, SeaD Consulting conducted similar tests at 44 randomly selected restaurants in Wilmington, North Carolina—a coastal city celebrated for its seafood scene.

There, 34 restaurants (77%) were found to be serving imported, farm-raised shrimp, even as menus and servers suggested it was fresh and local. Only 10 establishments passed the authenticity test.

“In Wilmington, the seafood fraud rate is staggeringly high,” said John Williams, executive director of the Southern Shrimp Alliance. “Restaurants are misleading customers, hurting the local economy, and undermining the hard work of American shrimpers.”

The SSA has been funding shrimp testing across seven Gulf and Southeastern states as part of a broader campaign for transparency. Preliminary findings show that seafood mislabeling occurs in 78% of cases in states without seafood origin labeling laws. Even in states with such laws, fraud rates remain troubling at 36%.

The contrast between New Orleans and Wilmington underscores how cultural institutions like Jazz Fest can drive change. By voluntarily choosing Gulf shrimp, Jazz Fest vendors have shown that integrity and local pride can guide sourcing decisions—even in the absence of regulation.

“There’s no shame in selling imported shrimp,” said Dave Williams. “But there’s a big problem when you pretend it’s local. Let consumers decide—with the truth.”

The Southern Shrimp Alliance says it hopes other events and restaurants will follow Jazz Fest’s example. Until then, diners are encouraged to ask questions, request sourcing details, and support establishments that prioritize transparency and local suppliers.

(The Center Square) − A Louisiana Senate bill that would criminalize “unauthorized camping on public property” is drawing opposition from advocates for the homeless, who warn it is fiscally irresponsible and could overburden the justice system.

Snuck into the last page of Senate Bill 196 by Sen. Robert “Bob” Owen, R-Slidell, the law would create a new misdemeanor and felony crime for public camping.

A first offense could bring a fine of up to $500 or six months in jail. A second conviction would carry a mandatory minimum of one year behind bars—with the possibility of up to two years of hard labor—and a $1,000 fine.

The bill also authorizes district courts to set up a new statewide “homeless court” system. Defendants accused of public camping would be required to plead guilty and enter a one-year supervised treatment program. Failure to comply could result in incarceration in a state Department of Corrections facility and reentry into the program.

The proposal, which has not yet been assigned a fiscal note, could strain local governments already struggling with tight budgets. According to a 2019 report from the Louisiana Legislative Auditor, it cost the Orleans Parish Sheriffs Office $88 million to house prisoners that year. 

“Sheriff (Susan) Hutson recently sent out a mailer noting that it costs $53,000 to keep someone in jail for a year. In contrast, it would cost about $16,000 to place that person in supportive housing,” said Angela Owczarek, a director at Jane Place Neighborhood Sustainability Initiative, in a statement. 

“This would be enormously expensive,” Meghan Garvey, a New Orleans attorney, told the Senate Judiciary committee. “Police would be pulled away from addressing more serious crimes. So now we’re talking about law enforcement resources, public defenders, and court time being redirected.”

Under the proposed system, defendants could be expelled from the yearlong treatment program for nearly any reason, triggering incarceration. And by forcing guilty pleas, critics say it imposes lasting consequences — criminal records, court fees, and custody risks for families — on people already facing extreme hardship.

Jennifer Carwile, Vice Chair of Louisiana’s Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, said there are more constructive options.

“One thing we could do is designate a safe, legal place where people can camp without fear of being robbed or arrested,” Carwile said. “But in the end, if we’re serious about addressing this crisis, we have to invest in housing and rethink our priorities.”

Advocates argue that without new investments in shelter, supportive services, or affordable housing, the legislation amounts to “criminalizing poverty”. For now, the bill remains under review — but its impact is already stirring deep concern.