The Michigan Supreme Court is contemplating a significant proposal that would prohibit law enforcement from making civil arrests, particularly those related to immigration, within state and local courtrooms. This proposed rule, unveiled last month, seeks to protect individuals attending court proceedings or conducting legal business from potential arrests, thereby aligning with similar measures already adopted in states like New York and Illinois.
Advocates for the change, including the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, argue that such a rule is essential in fostering a legal environment where immigrants feel safe to attend court hearings without the fear of being detained. Susan Reed, the center's executive director, emphasized that the presence of immigration enforcement in courthouses could significantly deter immigrants from seeking justice.
While the specific number of civil arrests occurring in courthouses remains unclear, some analyses suggest that around 2,388 immigration-related arrests happened in federal courts across the nation in a recent timeframe, with several incidents reported in Detroit.
The proposed change comes amid ongoing discussions on immigration policies under the current administration, which have seen a shift back to more stringent enforcement practices. Under former President Joe Biden, guidelines limiting immigration arrests in sensitive areas, including courthouses, were introduced but were reversed at the beginning of President Trump's second term.
With Michigan now considering its own restrictions, the move reflects a growing trend among Democratic-leaning states to limit civil arrests, thus protecting the rights of immigrants and ensuring a fairer judicial process for all. As the Michigan Supreme Court collects public comments on the proposal until December 22, the outcome remains uncertain, with a hearing planned to discuss the potential rule-change further.
Comments submitted so far show widespread support for the prohibition, highlighting the critical role of safety and access to justice in the court system. Conversely, some opponents argue against interfering with federal enforcement protocols, citing that immigration laws should be upheld uniformly.
