The Michigan Supreme Court has released a proposed rule that would prohibit civil arrests at courthouses statewide, a move that, while not explicitly naming immigration enforcement, would effectively bar most ICE civil detentions unless backed by a judicial warrant.
The proposal was supported by all justices except Justice Brian K. Zahra, who said he would not have released it for public comment. Michigan’s Supreme Court currently has a Democratic-appointed majority, a shift that took place over recent election cycles. The court’s ideological balance has leaned left in recent years, which is relevant context given the national political divide over immigration enforcement and courthouse arrest policies.
The court is accepting public input until December 22, a shorter window than usual. State Court Administrator Tom Boyd said everything is still on the table, the court could adopt the rule as written, revise it significantly, or drop it entirely.
Why the Rule Was Proposed
Advocates say fear of civil immigration arrests around courthouses has been rising.
Christine Sauvé of the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center said her organization has seen an increasing number of calls from people worried about ICE agents near judicial buildings.
“It can deter people from using the courts and accessing the court process that they need to preserve individual rights for well-being and again for public safety,” Sauvé said.
She said ICE would still have many opportunities to make civil arrests elsewhere, but people need to feel safe entering a courthouse to handle essential matters.
States Across the Country Are Taking Similar Steps
Michigan joins a growing list of states responding to courthouse immigration enforcement:
- New York passed the Protect Our Courts Act in 2020, which a federal judge recently upheld against DOJ challenges.
- California and Colorado enacted laws blocking most civil arrests at courthouses.
- Cook County in Chicago issued an administrative order reaffirming the longstanding common law protection against civil arrest while attending court.
- Connecticut bars arrests inside public courthouse areas without a judge-signed warrant.
- Illinois lawmakers are waiting on Gov. J.B. Pritzker to sign HB13, which would block civil arrests within 1,000 feet of courthouses.
Dan Schneider of Legal Action Chicago said these changes reflect a clear trend, noting “there absolutely have been an increase in immigration agents picking people up when they are going to and from court proceedings.” He said the practice undermines courts’ ability to function and violates principles dating back hundreds of years in English common law.
Opponents Raise Concerns
Critics argue that limiting civil arrests too broadly could hamper law enforcement. Schneider dismissed that concern, noting Illinois’ proposal only penalizes knowing violations, meaning inadvertent arrests would not result in liability.
Others oppose the rules based on a belief that the government should be able to enforce the law wherever they want, Schneider said.
Immigration Lawyers Describe the Impact
Immigration attorney Carl Hurvich of the Brooks Law Firm said protections against courthouse ICE detentions are important, especially when undocumented people appear as witnesses the state needs.
He noted that some states have tried switching more hearings to virtual formats, but ICE has still detained people at their attorneys’ offices during scheduled video hearings. One of his clients was detained simply for showing up to court to pay a fine.
Hurvich said ICE tends to prefer courthouse arrests because metal detectors prevent weapons and individuals are less likely to flee. While he doubts the rule would dramatically reduce ICE detentions overall, given federal priorities, he still supports state courts that push back against what he views as interference.
Discuss On Our Facebook Page:
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1D5UsSuC2p