Michigan Supreme Court Bans Civil Arrests During Court Proceedings
The Michigan Supreme Court has implemented a new rule that prohibits civil arrests, including those executed under civil immigration warrants typically used by ICE. These warrants are administrative, not judicial, in nature.
The newly adopted rule, effective May 1, ensures that individuals such as parties, attorneys, and subpoenaed witnesses are protected from civil arrests while en route to, attending, or returning from any place they are legally required to be for justice-related functions.
This regulation applies to any location where a person must appear for judicial proceedings or related duties, including the necessary and direct travel to and from those events.
First introduced in late November, the proposed rule attracted extensive public engagement, with over 2,500 comments submitted to the court’s website. Supporters included Attorney General Dana Nessel, various state legislators, and organizations like the State Bar of Michigan Executive Committee.
Attorney General Nessel emphasized, “The existence of, and ICE’s compliance with, its own prior policies shows that ICE can carry out its operations without making civil arrests in a courthouse. And there is nothing in the proposed amendment to suggest otherwise.” She further argued that the proposed amendment’s impact on ICE’s operations would be minimal, while ensuring the people’s fundamental rights in the justice system.
This new rule aligns Michigan with several other states, such as New York, Connecticut, and Illinois, which have also implemented measures to restrict ICE activities in court settings.
Judge Noah Hood provided a concurring opinion, emphasizing the rule’s role in maintaining order in courthouses and courtrooms, allowing individuals to conduct their business without interruption. He clarified that the rule does not hinder federal or state law enforcement from carrying out their duties.
Opposing the new rule, Justice Brian K. Zahra, the court’s sole Republican, described it as “at best a political statement framed as a solution in search of a problem.” He highlighted that immigration detention at courthouses was not a prevalent issue in Michigan and expressed concerns about potential conflicts with the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.
Justice Zahra further stated, “State courts have no authority to void a federal arrest,” arguing that the amendment offers only a false sense of security regarding federal arrests.
Meanwhile, legislation aimed at limiting ICE actions in various jurisdictions, including courts, has progressed to the full Senate. While the bills are likely to pass the Democratic-controlled Senate, Michigan House Speaker Matt Hall has declined to consider similar proposals in the Republican-led House.
—
Read More Michigan News
