Michigan Supreme Court Considers Ban on Civil Arrests in Courthouses

Fri Dec 05 2025 00:28:35 GMT+0200 (Eastern European Standard Time)

A proposal under review by the Michigan Supreme Court aims to prevent law enforcement from making civil arrests, particularly targeting undocumented immigrants, within state and local courthouses. This move intends to encourage participation in court proceedings without the fear of immigration enforcement.

The Michigan Supreme Court is deliberating a significant proposal that could restrict civil arrests, including those of suspected noncitizens, in local courthouses. Advocates argue this change is vital for ensuring that all individuals feel secure attending court proceedings. Currently, some states have similar laws that protect immigrants from being arrested while engaging with the judicial system. The proposal is in response to concerns about rising immigration enforcement in courthouses under the current administration and aims to strengthen access to justice for all residents.

Law enforcement would be prohibited from conducting civil arrests — including those related to immigration — in state and local courtrooms under a potential rule change being studied by the Michigan Supreme Court. This proposed amendment emerged following increasing concerns over civil arrests occurring in courthouses, which advocates argue can deter immigrants from attending court proceedings.

The suggested rule restricts civil arrests of individuals “attending a court proceeding or having legal business” within any Michigan trial or appellate courthouse, while not interfering with criminal or court-ordered arrests. If enacted, this would align Michigan with other states like New York, Connecticut, and Illinois, which have taken steps to limit immigration arrests in local courts.

Amidst the recent crackdown on illegal immigration by federal authorities, the move aims to protect individuals who fear arrest during legal proceedings. Susan Reed, the executive director of the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, expressed that such policies are crucial for ensuring every person can participate in court without fear. She stated, “It’s an issue that affects everyone when you have any part of the population that is afraid to come and participate in our court proceedings.”

Concerns have arisen about immigration enforcement within courthouses, which undermines longstanding Michigan laws that protect litigants from civil arrests. Reed and Loren Khogali from the ACLU highlighted that even the possibility of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents present can deter individuals from seeking necessary legal assistance. One incident outside a Michigan courthouse, where a U.S. citizen was mistakenly detained by ICE, further catalyzed calls for a change in the rules surrounding civil arrests.

Currently, the Michigan Supreme Court is collecting public comments on the proposal, which must be submitted by December 22. A public hearing is also planned before any decisions are made on the proposed amendment. Proponents argue that such rules are essential for maintaining the integrity of the judicial system and ensuring access to justice. However, some opponents assert that state courts should not obstruct federal immigration activities, advocating adherence to existing immigration laws.

As the legal landscape regarding immigration enforcement continues to evolve, the outcome in Michigan could set a precedent for how states address similar issues moving forward. Advocates hope that adopting this rule would alleviate fears and encourage greater participation in the justice system, fostering a more inclusive environment.