Law enforcement may soon be barred from making civil arrests, including immigration-related detentions, in Michigan's state and local courtrooms under a proposal currently under consideration by the Michigan Supreme Court.
The proposed rule change, announced last month, aims to prevent civil arrests of individuals 'attending a court proceeding or having legal business' in any of Michigan’s trial or appellate courthouses. Importantly, it would not affect criminal or court-mandated arrests.
If enacted, this amendment would align Michigan with other states like New York and Illinois that have sought to restrict immigration arrests following court proceedings. Immigration arrests in courthouses have reportedly increased in recent months amid the government's crackdown on illegal immigration enforcement.
While states cannot control actions in federal immigration courts, proponents of the change argue that Michigan courts should adopt similar protections to safeguard the rights of immigrants and ensure fair access to justice.
“It’s an issue affecting everyone when people are afraid to engage with our court system,” said Susan Reed, executive director of the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center. Advocates emphasize that the chilling effect of potential arrests discourages immigration-related witnesses or litigants from attending court.
In recent months, similar policies in other states have faced legal challenges from the federal government as part of attempts to enforce immigration laws vigorously.
Context and Rationale
Data on courthouse arrests is scarce, but an analysis highlighted 2,388 arrests in federal immigration courts nationwide within a recent three-month window, including nine in Detroit.
Advocacy groups are pressing for the changes in light of incidents where individuals have faced wrongful detentions outside court, spurring public discussions on the intersection of immigration and civil rights within the justice system.
As the Michigan Supreme Court collects public comments on this proposal, advocacy groups argue that formal rules protecting individuals in court will restore confidence in the judicial process, particularly among immigrant communities.
Comparative Legislation
Multiple states have already introduced similar legislation to limit civil immigration arrests in court settings. For instance, Illinois has enacted a ban on such arrests, while New York also has stringent controls in place allowing arrests only under specific conditions.
The conversation around these changes remains divisive; some opponents argue that state courts should not impede federal immigration enforcement, positing that adherence to immigration laws is crucial for the court's integrity.
Moving forward, the Michigan Supreme Court plans to hold a public hearing to discuss the proposal further. The outcome could significantly shape how courts handle the intersection of civil rights and immigration enforcement in the state.
