The liberal Michigan Supreme Court put forth a proposal aimed at curbing US Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s ability to make arrests in state courthouses, something many of the thousands who commented on it say is sorely needed.
The measure received more than 2,500 written submissions up to Tuesday. That’s the most for any proposed rule change in at least the past 20 years, a court spokesman said in an email.
The rule, which has the backing of the State Bar of Michigan’s executive committee and Attorney General Dana Nessel (D), would bar civil arrests at courthouses throughout the state for people “attending a court proceeding or having legal business in the courthouse.” The proposal—released over the objection of Justice Brian K. Zahra, the court’s lone conservative—wouldn’t apply to arrests made pursuant to “a valid warrant that a judge has authorized.”
Some arrests covered under the proposal are barred by state law, but the rule would make clearer what’s already in place, said Susan E. Reed, director of the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center.
“That has not previously been understood to mean ICE arrests,” she said of state law, “and this would clarify that.”
The proposal, which the court has fast tracked after being introduced last month, comes as ICE under President Donald Trump has shown few qualms about making arrests in courthouses. This was highlighted by a jury last week finding a Wisconsin state judge guilty of trying to help a foreign defendant in a case in front of her to evade agents who sought to detain him.
The court will hold a public hearing on Jan. 14 to receive more feedback.
Flood of Support
The ACLU of Michigan, along with the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center wrote in support of the proposal. It also appeared to draw responses from those who wouldn’t normally weigh in on court matters; multiple entries had substantially similar or the same wording in what appeared to be a form letter.
Nessel wrote that “all told, the impact of the proposed amendment on ICE’s operations will be minimal, and any impact is far outweighed by the need to protect and preserve the people’s fundamental right to participation and accountability in the fair administration of justice.”
State Bar Executive Director Peter Cunningham said that “when parties, witnesses, victims, or members of the general public are deterred from entering courthouses, public safety, the integrity of our judicial system, and constitutional principles are undermined.”
Three Democratic state senators also said the rule would be a good stopgap measure until a proposed bill they put forth that would ban ICE arrests in several places, including courthouses, was passed.
One notable letter of opposition came from the Michigan Sheriffs’ Association, which said the proposal would wrongly encroach on the power of the federal government.
“If the amended rule were to be adopted, it could put Michigan law enforcement officers, tasked with providing security operations to a court, in an untenable position of attempting to enforce the rule, while interfering with a federal officer in the performance of their duties,” wrote Matthew M. Saxton, the association’s CEO and executive director.
Courthouse Incidents
The Michigan State Planning Body, which serves to organize legal services for low-income people, said the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to rescind a policy mostly barring ICE from making immigration arrests at or near courthouses led to incidents in Plymouth and Ypsilanti.
Other local court systems and states have enacted rules and laws that aim to have a similar effect on ICE, said Douglas Keith, a deputy director at the Brennan Center for Justice. While some jurisdictions acted during Trump’s first term, others—like the states of Connecticut and Illinois—waited until this year, he said.
The Trump administration reacted negatively to the proposal.
“We aren’t some medieval kingdom; there are no legal sanctuaries where you can hide and avoid the consequences for breaking the law,” Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said when it was released. “Nothing in the constitution prohibits arresting a lawbreaker where you find them.”
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editors responsible for this story: