By Liz Nass
Gongwer News Service
Some notable Republicans have been critical of a recently proposed rule amendment in front of the Michigan Supreme Court to prohibit civil arrests in courthouses.
The proposal arises in the face of threats of detainment by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in public spaces including locations that used to be considers in a “protected areas policy.”
While the public hearing last week in front of the Supreme Court was highly in favor of the amendment, other Republicans, like Mike Cox, former attorney general and Republican gubernatorial candidate, see this as a dangerous step toward establishing “sanctuary courthouses.”
In a statement released Tuesday, Cox said the proposal was “nothing more than a backdoor sanctuary policy” that resists efforts from law enforcement.
“That’s reckless, unconstitutional, and a slap in the face to every law-abiding citizen who expects our leaders to prioritize public safety,” Cox said.
Cox also blamed Attorney General Dana Nessel for “pushing a radical agenda from the bench.”
“Dana Nessel and her allies on the court are trying to implement their extreme, leftist ideas from the bench, bypassing the legislature and the voters,” Cox said. “They want to turn courthouses into safe havens for people who are in this country illegally. That’s not justice. That’s activism.”
Nessel’s office did not respond to requests for comment at time of publication. Nessel expressed support for the rule, but if it is implemented is up to the Supreme Court.
Cox said Michigan Democrats want to sabotage enforcing immigration law, and in his campaign for governor, he would work with President Donald Trump on his deportation efforts.
House Judiciary Committee Chair Rep. Sarah Lightner, R-Springport, published an op-ed in The Detroit News on Saturday, saying the court is “overstepping its role,” imploring that power balances erode when courts abandon their role of interpretation to instead create policy from the bench.
She said that this change would not be a minor procedural change, but “significant policy shift that interferes with federal law enforcement and sends a clear political message from the bench.”
“Courthouses exist to uphold the rule of law, not to provide safe harbor for people attempting to avoid it,” Lightner wrote. “The idea that we would intentionally push ICE agents out of our courthouses in order to protect criminals who are here illegally, and keep them in our communities, is misguided at best.”
The supporters’ argument does not hold up, Lightner said, because courts already have procedures to “ensure fairness, due process and safety,” and this rule change would create special protections for one group without approval from the Legislature.
She also drew parallels of this overstepping to the court’s decision last year to strike down a law allowing mandatory life without parole sentences for 19- and 20-year olds, saying that instead of interpreting the law, the court “expanded the approach” to rule on the side of “emerging adults,” a category the judiciary invented, Lightner said, that does not exist anywhere else in Michigan law.
Gongwer News Service
Some notable Republicans have been critical of a recently proposed rule amendment in front of the Michigan Supreme Court to prohibit civil arrests in courthouses.
The proposal arises in the face of threats of detainment by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in public spaces including locations that used to be considers in a “protected areas policy.”
While the public hearing last week in front of the Supreme Court was highly in favor of the amendment, other Republicans, like Mike Cox, former attorney general and Republican gubernatorial candidate, see this as a dangerous step toward establishing “sanctuary courthouses.”
In a statement released Tuesday, Cox said the proposal was “nothing more than a backdoor sanctuary policy” that resists efforts from law enforcement.
“That’s reckless, unconstitutional, and a slap in the face to every law-abiding citizen who expects our leaders to prioritize public safety,” Cox said.
Cox also blamed Attorney General Dana Nessel for “pushing a radical agenda from the bench.”
“Dana Nessel and her allies on the court are trying to implement their extreme, leftist ideas from the bench, bypassing the legislature and the voters,” Cox said. “They want to turn courthouses into safe havens for people who are in this country illegally. That’s not justice. That’s activism.”
Nessel’s office did not respond to requests for comment at time of publication. Nessel expressed support for the rule, but if it is implemented is up to the Supreme Court.
Cox said Michigan Democrats want to sabotage enforcing immigration law, and in his campaign for governor, he would work with President Donald Trump on his deportation efforts.
House Judiciary Committee Chair Rep. Sarah Lightner, R-Springport, published an op-ed in The Detroit News on Saturday, saying the court is “overstepping its role,” imploring that power balances erode when courts abandon their role of interpretation to instead create policy from the bench.
She said that this change would not be a minor procedural change, but “significant policy shift that interferes with federal law enforcement and sends a clear political message from the bench.”
“Courthouses exist to uphold the rule of law, not to provide safe harbor for people attempting to avoid it,” Lightner wrote. “The idea that we would intentionally push ICE agents out of our courthouses in order to protect criminals who are here illegally, and keep them in our communities, is misguided at best.”
The supporters’ argument does not hold up, Lightner said, because courts already have procedures to “ensure fairness, due process and safety,” and this rule change would create special protections for one group without approval from the Legislature.
She also drew parallels of this overstepping to the court’s decision last year to strike down a law allowing mandatory life without parole sentences for 19- and 20-year olds, saying that instead of interpreting the law, the court “expanded the approach” to rule on the side of “emerging adults,” a category the judiciary invented, Lightner said, that does not exist anywhere else in Michigan law.
––––––––––––––––––––
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
