Lansing, Michigan — The Michigan Supreme Court has approved a new rule restricting civil arrests at courthouses, including those tied to immigration enforcement, marking a notable shift in how legal proceedings intersect with federal authority.
The rule, which takes effect May 1, bars civil arrests of parties, attorneys, and subpoenaed witnesses while traveling to, attending, or returning from court. It applies broadly to locations where individuals are legally required to appear, along with reasonable travel to and from those proceedings. The policy targets administrative warrants commonly used by ICE, distinguishing them from criminal judicial warrants.
Supporters, including Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, argued the rule protects public access to the courts. Nessel stated that ICE has historically conducted operations without courthouse arrests and that limiting such actions preserves participation in the justice system. The proposal drew more than 2,500 public comments, reflecting strong engagement.
Justice Noah Hood, concurring, emphasized the rule falls within the court’s authority to maintain order and ensure court accessibility. However, Justice Brian Zahra dissented, calling the measure “a political statement” and warning it could conflict with the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which governs federal authority.
Michigan now aligns with states like New York and Illinois that have enacted similar limits. Meanwhile, related legislation restricting ICE activity continues advancing in the state Senate, though its future remains uncertain in the Republican-controlled House.
Sources:
Discover more from News Facts Network
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
