Sheriffs have long been a fixture in American law enforcement, but the extent of their power and influence are often underestimated. In a recent thought-provoking event hosted by the George Barrett Social Justice Program, Farhang Heydari sat down with Jessica Pishko to explore the unchecked authority of sheriffs. Pishko is a lawyer and journalist who received her J.D. from Harvard and M.F.A from Columbia. In her book “The Highest Law in the Land: How the Unchecked Power of Sheriffs Threatens Democracy,” she reveals how sheriffs operate in ways that challenge democracy and equity.
The Role of Sheriffs
Pishko began by providing a basic explanation of what sheriffs are: “[They] are the elected law enforcement officials of [a] county… and their primary responsibility is a degree of policing, but they also run county jails.” She continued to add that sheriffs hold the discretion to set many policies that heavily impact communities without checks on their power: “You might not know what they are… there’s not a judge to assess if [the policy] is a constitutional rule or not, there’s no one to generally put a limit [on sheriffs’ power].”
As elected officials, sheriffs are primarily responsible for policing. They determine when drivers are stopped and ticketed, and how minor infractions are enforced. Pishko emphasized that, in their capacity as heads of county jails, sheriffs also hold the discretion to set many impactful policies. They can decide whether detainees are booked into the jail or released, how people are searched once they enter the jail, if in-person family visits are allowed, the conditions of confinement, and more.
“There’s not a judge to assess if the policy is a constitutional rule or not, and there’s no one to generally put a limit [on sheriffs’ power],” Pishko said.
The Unchecked Power of Sheriffs
Pishko offers a two-pronged explanation for how sheriffs pose a threat to democracy. The first is the largely insulated political ecosystem in which sheriffs operate. “They are elected on a county level, but most of their elections are uncontested,” she explained, “and there are various ways in which sheriffs can control who runs against them.” Those running for sheriff must live in the county. Pishko pointed out that roughly 90% of sheriffs went to high school in the county where they serve,” underscoring the the deep community ties that often get sheriffs elected.
Sheriffs exercise nearly absolute control over their personnel. “If you are working for a sheriff, and you’re thinking, ‘I could do this job a lot better… I’m going to announce that I’m running for sheriff,’” she said, “the sheriff can fire you, in most places.” She adds that unlike police chiefs, who are appointed and subject to oversight, sheriffs answer only to voters—many of whom remain unaware of the position’s extreme authority.
Pishko’s second reason was how sheriffs’ roles distort democratic representation. Regardless of the population “You only get one sheriff per county,” she explained, regardless of population. To illustrate this imbalance, Pishko used Texas, which has about 250 counties, most of which are sparsely populated. The influence of those sheriffs is amplified when “they show up and say, ‘We don’t like this law,’” Pishko explained. The sheer number of sheriffs creates “an impression that more people support something than in reality,” akin to how “the Electoral College kind of warps voting away from urban areas towards rural areas.” This disproportionate influence allows sheriffs to push policies that may not reflect the preferences of larger, more diverse communities they represent.
Sheriffs and Immigration
Toward the end of the discussion, Pishko explained that “because sheriffs run jails, they are much more intimately involved with immigration enforcement than other law enforcement agencies” Any booked into jail is checked by law enforcement for open warrants. “They also look to see [if you have been] previously deported, or [if] you seem like you might be undocumented,” said Pishko. Sheriffs can interrogate detainees by asking if they are an American citizen. While this may seem like a straightforward question, she noted that it can lead to deportation proceedings—“People can get put into deportation proceedings, even if they are protected by DACA… They have temporary work status… [or are] awaiting the determination of their asylum hearings.”
Pishko also emphasized how sheriffs support ICE operations, often receiving federal funds to house detainees. “ICE…doesn’t have a lot of people on the ground,” she explained, so sheriffs help “house people, feed them… arrest them, [and] flag them.” She found it particularly troubling that people are put into deportation proceedings before they’re convicted. “You could be bail-eligible… but if they think there’s a problem with your immigration status, they can just shift you right into deportation proceedings and never release you, even if you would be ordinarily… eligible for release.”
