LANSING, Mich. — Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel is urging the Michigan Supreme Court to adopt a new rule that would prohibit most civil immigration arrests inside state and local courthouses, a move she says is necessary to keep people showing up for court.
RELATED: Democrat-Majority Michigan Supreme Court Pushes Rule That Would Limit ICE Arrests in Courts
In an interview with Bridge Michigan, Nessel argued that the presence of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in courthouses has created widespread fear, leading victims, witnesses, and even defendants to avoid court altogether.
“You want people to show up for court,” Nessel said. “Victims and witnesses need to feel comfortable coming so those cases can be pursued.”
According to Nessel, fear of immigration enforcement has already resulted in dismissed cases and stalled prosecutions across Michigan. She said the issue is especially pronounced in human trafficking cases, where cooperation from victims is critical.
While trafficking reports have increased, Nessel said prosecutions have dropped sharply because people are afraid to appear in court.
“We’re talking about U.S. citizens that don’t want to come to court,” she told Bridge Michigan. “I’ve never brought my birth certificate or passport to court. Telling people they can’t come without those documents is a dangerous place to be.”
Nessel claims the fear extends beyond undocumented immigrants, saying ICE has detained people perceived to be undocumented for days, even when they are U.S. citizens. She also said people of color are disproportionately affected.
The proposed rule, announced last year by the Michigan Supreme Court, would bar civil arrests of people attending court proceedings or conducting legal business in Michigan trial and appellate courts. Criminal warrants and court-ordered arrests would still be allowed, but most civil immigration arrests rely on administrative warrants and would be restricted.
Six of the court’s seven justices were appointed or nominated by Democratic governors. The court has not yet made a final decision but has received more than 2,500 public comments on the proposal.
Nessel argued that federal authorities long avoided courthouse arrests under the former “sensitive places” policy and said immigration enforcement can continue without disrupting state courts.
“For decades, they enforced immigration law without doing this,” she said. “They can go back to doing it without interfering with the workings of our state courts.”
Opponents of the rule say state courts should not interfere with federal immigration enforcement, arguing that immigration law applies everywhere, including courthouses. Several critics submitted written comments accusing the court of creating a de facto sanctuary policy.
Nessel rejected that characterization, saying the issue is about court access, not immigration status.
“This isn’t a long-term fear,” she said. “This is happening right now. Cases are being dismissed day after day because people are too afraid to come to court.”
If adopted, the rule would place Michigan among Democratic-leaning states that have attempted to limit courthouse immigration arrests, policies that have repeatedly drawn legal challenges from the Trump administration.