Michigan Supreme Court considers limits on courthouse immigration arrests

Michigan’s Supreme Court Weighs Ban on Immigration Arrests in State Courthouses

Michigan may soon join several states restricting civil immigration arrests in courthouses under a proposal being considered by the state’s Supreme Court. The rule change would prohibit civil arrests of individuals “attending a court proceeding or having legal business” in Michigan’s trial or appellate courthouses, though it would not interfere with criminal or court-ordered arrests.

The proposal comes amid increased immigration enforcement under President Donald Trump’s administration, which has prioritized deportations nationwide. If adopted, Michigan would align with states like New York, Connecticut, and Illinois that have implemented similar restrictions.

Advocates argue the measure is necessary to ensure court access for all Michigan residents. “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,” said Susan Reed, executive director of the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center.

Reed and ACLU of Michigan director Loren Khogali first urged Michigan courts to change civil arrest rules last April following an incident where a U.S. citizen was mistakenly detained by federal immigration enforcement outside Plymouth’s 35th District Court. They contend immigration enforcement in courthouses violates longstanding Michigan law protecting litigants from civil arrests.

The fear of potential encounters with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or border patrol agents can significantly impact court proceedings. Prosecutors may struggle to secure witness testimony, and individuals may avoid seeking court assistance for matters like child custody or domestic violence protection.

“A rule would definitely go a long way to address fear,” Reed noted. “To simply make the state court a place where state matters are adjudicated and not address these federal civil immigration matters there, it’s really a practical response by the Supreme Court.”

The proposal comes at a time of significant policy shifts at the federal level. Guidelines limiting immigration arrests in “protected areas” like courthouses, schools, and hospitals established during President Biden’s administration were reversed on Trump’s first day back in office in January 2025.

Current ICE guidance allows officers to pursue civil immigration enforcement in courthouses when they have “credible information” a person of interest will be present. The policy recommends conducting arrests in non-public areas of facilities when possible and in collaboration with court security staff.

ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons defended courthouse enforcement in a May memo, arguing such locations can reduce safety risks for agents and the public since individuals entering courthouses are typically screened for weapons.

The Department of Homeland Security announced in October it was on pace to deport 600,000 people by the end of Trump’s first year back in office. As of mid-November, more than 65,000 people were being held in U.S. detention facilities.

Other Democratic-leaning states have already implemented similar protections. New York passed a law in 2020 only allowing federal agents with criminal warrants or judicial orders to make arrests in state or local courthouses. Last month, a federal judge dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit challenging New York’s policy as unconstitutional.

Illinois approved a ban on courthouse civil immigration arrests in October, creating a pathway for residents to sue immigration agents who violate constitutional rights. Connecticut recently passed legislation limiting civil immigration arrests and barring law enforcement officers from wearing face coverings in court.

The Michigan Supreme Court, where six of seven justices were appointed or nominated by Democratic governors, is collecting public comments on the proposal through December 22. Justice Brian Zahra, the court’s lone Republican nominee, opposed publishing the proposal for comment.

Court spokesperson John Nevin indicated a public hearing would be held before any action is taken, which “might be as proposed, something different, or nothing at all.”

Public response has been predominantly supportive, with nearly 500 comments submitted by December 1. Michigan attorney Jeremy Orr wrote: “I have seen firsthand how fear keeps people from showing up for hearings, filing important documents, or even reporting harm. When people are too afraid to enter the courthouse, they lose access to justice and the entire system suffers.”

Opponents argue state courts shouldn’t interfere with federal enforcement, with some commenters suggesting immigration law should be followed regardless of location. “I do not believe the courts should be in the business of making laws from the bench,” wrote Victoria Muterspaugh. “Come here legally or ICE will see you to the door.”