Federal Judge Halts Michigan Civil Rights Provision on Abortion Rights

A judge halted enforcement of Michigan's civil rights law barring discrimination against those who've had an abortion.
Federal Judge Halts Michigan Civil Rights Provision on Abortion Rights

Federal Judge Halts Enforcement of Michigan Abortion Rights Provision

In a significant legal development, a federal judge has issued a temporary injunction against enforcing a contentious provision in Michigan’s civil rights legislation. This provision, part of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, prohibits employment discrimination against individuals who choose to have an abortion. The decision by U.S. District Court Judge Robert Jonker also includes a request for the Michigan Supreme Court to provide guidance on how state and federal rights intersect in this context.

The legal challenge was initiated by Right to Life of Michigan, an anti-abortion organization. The group argues that the new law, which emerged from a voter-approved reproductive rights amendment to the state constitution, places them in a difficult position. The law’s stipulation against discrimination in hiring based on abortion rights conflicts with their mission. Genevieve Marnon, the legislative director for the organization, expressed her concerns, stating, “It seems really counterintuitive to say your entire mission is to promote pro-life values, and yet you may be forced to hire somebody who completely discards those beliefs.”

The recent amendment to Michigan law, which has come under scrutiny, was enacted three years ago. Meanwhile, the office of Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel is currently evaluating the judge’s ruling. The state contends that there has been no attempt to enforce the law as described by Right to Life, thus questioning the need for a preliminary injunction.

Judge Jonker’s request for an advisory opinion from the Michigan Supreme Court is a notable step. University of Michigan Law Professor Sam Bagenstos commented on this development, explaining, “Sometimes a federal judge will say, actually, this question of state law is sufficiently unsettled or unclear. So, I need an authoritative answer from the state courts because the state courts get to tell us what state law means.”

It remains uncertain if the Michigan Supreme Court will respond to this request, as it is not compelled to do so. The court currently consists of six justices affiliated with the Democratic party and one justice nominated by the Republican party.


Read More Michigan News

Share the Post:

Subscribe

Related Posts