By Liz Nass
Gongwer News Service
The Michigan Supreme Court adopted a rule last Wednesday to prohibit all civil arrests in courtrooms, including those tied to immigration enforcement.
The amendment, first proposed in November 2025, 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.
The rule includes any person in the courtroom, testifying or not. The rule will went into effect on May 1.
Justice Noah Hood wrote a concurring opinion to the adoption, saying the rule promotes court safety, accessibility and efficient administration of justice.
He also said the amendment does not “impair federal or state executives from lawfully executing existing laws.”
“The rule only applies to civil arrests without a warrant,” Hood wrote. “It is doubtful that this will in any way impair core police work. This is evidenced by the fact that for decades – if not longer – the police have been able to faithfully execute their duties without disrupting court business.”
The court is a service provider, and the service only works if people can access it “free from “undue harassment or interference,” Hood said.
Justice Brian Zahra, the lone Republican on the court, opposed the rule, writing in dissent the new rule is a departure from precedence in place since 2021, “which limited ICE to taking enforcement action in or near a courthouse only under certain circumstances, such as when the action involved a national security threat, imminent serious risk was present, the ICE officer was in hot pursuit, or there was an imminent risk of destruction of evidence.”
Zahra said state courts don’t have authority to void a federal arrest and that there could be problems with federal government supremacy. He included a criticism from the Michigan Sheriff’s Association claiming the rule “could put Michigan law enforcement officers, tasked with providing security operations to a court, in an untenable position of attempting to enforce the rule, while interfering with a federal officer in the performance of their duties.”
The amendment was “unnecessary and ill-advised,” Zahra wrote, as there has only been one reported instance of someone being arrested due to immigration enforcement in Michigan. He said the amendment “is at best a political statement framed as a solution in search of a problem.”
The ACLU of Michigan and Michigan Immigrant Rights Center in a joint statement praised the adoption of the rule, saying the court rule promotes full participation in state proceedings, benefitting all Michiganders.
“Ensuring that everyone can exercise their fundamental right to access the justice system is essential to a well-functioning democracy. The amended rule helps to achieve that goal,” Loren Khogali, ACLU executive director, said in a statement.
The public hearing held on the rule in January was overwhelming supportive of the rule change. Attorney General Dana Nessel also previously publicly supported the rule, saying “when people are afraid to report crimes or come to court because they fear a civil arrest, it puts victims at risk and makes our communities less safe.”
Republicans have slammed the rule. House Republicans cited it as one reason for reducing funding to the Supreme Court in its judiciary budget passed recently.
Twelve House Republicans, including Rep. Bradley Slagh, R-Zeeland, wrote a letter to the Supreme Court opposing the rule earlier this year.
“Courthouses exist to uphold the law, but this rule would choose to selectively ignore it,” Slagh said in a statement. “It would turn places meant for justice and accountability into safe havens from federal law enforcement. That’s not something the Legislature can simply overlook.”
Gongwer News Service
The Michigan Supreme Court adopted a rule last Wednesday to prohibit all civil arrests in courtrooms, including those tied to immigration enforcement.
The amendment, first proposed in November 2025, 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.
The rule includes any person in the courtroom, testifying or not. The rule will went into effect on May 1.
Justice Noah Hood wrote a concurring opinion to the adoption, saying the rule promotes court safety, accessibility and efficient administration of justice.
He also said the amendment does not “impair federal or state executives from lawfully executing existing laws.”
“The rule only applies to civil arrests without a warrant,” Hood wrote. “It is doubtful that this will in any way impair core police work. This is evidenced by the fact that for decades – if not longer – the police have been able to faithfully execute their duties without disrupting court business.”
The court is a service provider, and the service only works if people can access it “free from “undue harassment or interference,” Hood said.
Justice Brian Zahra, the lone Republican on the court, opposed the rule, writing in dissent the new rule is a departure from precedence in place since 2021, “which limited ICE to taking enforcement action in or near a courthouse only under certain circumstances, such as when the action involved a national security threat, imminent serious risk was present, the ICE officer was in hot pursuit, or there was an imminent risk of destruction of evidence.”
Zahra said state courts don’t have authority to void a federal arrest and that there could be problems with federal government supremacy. He included a criticism from the Michigan Sheriff’s Association claiming the rule “could put Michigan law enforcement officers, tasked with providing security operations to a court, in an untenable position of attempting to enforce the rule, while interfering with a federal officer in the performance of their duties.”
The amendment was “unnecessary and ill-advised,” Zahra wrote, as there has only been one reported instance of someone being arrested due to immigration enforcement in Michigan. He said the amendment “is at best a political statement framed as a solution in search of a problem.”
The ACLU of Michigan and Michigan Immigrant Rights Center in a joint statement praised the adoption of the rule, saying the court rule promotes full participation in state proceedings, benefitting all Michiganders.
“Ensuring that everyone can exercise their fundamental right to access the justice system is essential to a well-functioning democracy. The amended rule helps to achieve that goal,” Loren Khogali, ACLU executive director, said in a statement.
The public hearing held on the rule in January was overwhelming supportive of the rule change. Attorney General Dana Nessel also previously publicly supported the rule, saying “when people are afraid to report crimes or come to court because they fear a civil arrest, it puts victims at risk and makes our communities less safe.”
Republicans have slammed the rule. House Republicans cited it as one reason for reducing funding to the Supreme Court in its judiciary budget passed recently.
Twelve House Republicans, including Rep. Bradley Slagh, R-Zeeland, wrote a letter to the Supreme Court opposing the rule earlier this year.
“Courthouses exist to uphold the law, but this rule would choose to selectively ignore it,” Slagh said in a statement. “It would turn places meant for justice and accountability into safe havens from federal law enforcement. That’s not something the Legislature can simply overlook.”
––––––––––––––––––––
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
