By Liz Nass
Gongwer News Service
The Michigan Supreme Court held a wholly supportive public hearing on a rule change that would prohibit civil arrests in a courthouse.
The proposed rule amendment comes after continued concerns from law enforcement and prosecutors that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations are hindering people from showing up to court proceedings or reporting crimes in fear of being detained.
Eli Savit, Washtenaw County prosecutor and Democratic candidate for attorney general, said during public comment that this is a trend nationwide, creating a troubling dynamic for all victims, but specifically domestic violence victims, painting even the judicial system as unsafe for them and exacerbating the problems.
However, Savit also called for a broader interpretation of the rule, allowing for protection not only for those called to court, but visitors as well that may come with victims like family members.
Elinor Jordan, an attorney with the Michigan Poverty Law Program, said the proposed amendment gets to the core of the court’s mission to make sure the law is applied evenly for victims that are already often worried at the proceedings.
“Immigration enforcement activity in courthouses undermines racial justice when staff and court visitors may be stopped or questioned based on their race, accent or perceived immigration status, while their white counterparts pass freely,” Jordan said. “It's traumatic and intimidating.”
If witnesses and victims evade the courts, Jordan said, “erroneous denials go uncorrected, and the statutory right to judicial review becomes hollow.” Specifically, when it comes to housing issues, tenants not showing allows landlords to continue to ignore improving living conditions.
Emily Miller, program director for the Crime Victims Legal Assistance Project, said victims experiencing abuse often are “already taught by their perpetrators that there will be consequences if they disclose abuse or seek help,” so if a court allows immigration enforcement to further that “coercive control,” it could create more risks for them and the system overall.
Syeda Davidson, senior staff attorney with ACLU of Michigan, said other courts in other states have implemented these rules and were not preempted by federal law, with the statutes granting ICE agents authority to make arrests not mentioning any direction on courthouses.
“When (people) are victims of crime and when they're facing criminal charges, they have an absolute right to appear in court to defend them,” Davidson said. “Both the Michigan and United States’ constitutions guarantee everyone the right to meaningfully access courts. This right has long been recognized to apply to citizens and non-citizens alike.”
Lisa Varnier, an attorney in Oakland County, proposed another amendment to the rule that would specifically define civil arrests with an inclusion of immigration arrests to push back against any loopholes. Civil arrests are currently defined as arrests “pertaining to contempt of court, an action to recover a fine or penalty and actions against judgment debtors.”
The court did not make a decision on the rule Wednesday. It has also received more than 2,000 written comments on the proposed rule.
Gongwer News Service
The Michigan Supreme Court held a wholly supportive public hearing on a rule change that would prohibit civil arrests in a courthouse.
The proposed rule amendment comes after continued concerns from law enforcement and prosecutors that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations are hindering people from showing up to court proceedings or reporting crimes in fear of being detained.
Eli Savit, Washtenaw County prosecutor and Democratic candidate for attorney general, said during public comment that this is a trend nationwide, creating a troubling dynamic for all victims, but specifically domestic violence victims, painting even the judicial system as unsafe for them and exacerbating the problems.
However, Savit also called for a broader interpretation of the rule, allowing for protection not only for those called to court, but visitors as well that may come with victims like family members.
Elinor Jordan, an attorney with the Michigan Poverty Law Program, said the proposed amendment gets to the core of the court’s mission to make sure the law is applied evenly for victims that are already often worried at the proceedings.
“Immigration enforcement activity in courthouses undermines racial justice when staff and court visitors may be stopped or questioned based on their race, accent or perceived immigration status, while their white counterparts pass freely,” Jordan said. “It's traumatic and intimidating.”
If witnesses and victims evade the courts, Jordan said, “erroneous denials go uncorrected, and the statutory right to judicial review becomes hollow.” Specifically, when it comes to housing issues, tenants not showing allows landlords to continue to ignore improving living conditions.
Emily Miller, program director for the Crime Victims Legal Assistance Project, said victims experiencing abuse often are “already taught by their perpetrators that there will be consequences if they disclose abuse or seek help,” so if a court allows immigration enforcement to further that “coercive control,” it could create more risks for them and the system overall.
Syeda Davidson, senior staff attorney with ACLU of Michigan, said other courts in other states have implemented these rules and were not preempted by federal law, with the statutes granting ICE agents authority to make arrests not mentioning any direction on courthouses.
“When (people) are victims of crime and when they're facing criminal charges, they have an absolute right to appear in court to defend them,” Davidson said. “Both the Michigan and United States’ constitutions guarantee everyone the right to meaningfully access courts. This right has long been recognized to apply to citizens and non-citizens alike.”
Lisa Varnier, an attorney in Oakland County, proposed another amendment to the rule that would specifically define civil arrests with an inclusion of immigration arrests to push back against any loopholes. Civil arrests are currently defined as arrests “pertaining to contempt of court, an action to recover a fine or penalty and actions against judgment debtors.”
The court did not make a decision on the rule Wednesday. It has also received more than 2,000 written comments on the proposed rule.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
