FiscalFusion

Law enforcement would be barred from making civil arrests — including immigration arrests of suspected noncitizens — in state and local courtrooms under a proposal being considered by the Michigan Supreme Court. The proposed rule change announced last month would prohibit civil arrests of people attending a court proceeding or having legal business in any of Michigan’s trial or appellate courthouses, without interfering with criminal or court-ordered arrests. If adopted, the amendment would align Michigan with states like New York, Connecticut and Illinois that have attempted to limit immigration arrests in local courts amid increased enforcement under President Donald Trump’s administration. While states cannot regulate federal immigration courts, advocates argue such restrictions in state courts prevent immigrants from avoiding hearings out of fear. “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 of the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center. The Trump administration has challenged similar state policies as “sanctuary” rules, but without success. The timing comes as immigration arrests have increased, with one analysis showing 2,388 likely arrests in federal immigration courts nationwide between May and July 2025, including nine in Detroit.

Courthouse arrests remain relatively uncommon for people with no criminal history, but incidents — including one in Plymouth where a U.S. citizen was mistakenly detained — have raised concerns. Reed and ACLU of Michigan director Loren Khogali argue that even the presence of ICE can deter people from testifying or seeking court protection for issues like domestic violence or child custody, undermining court operations. Supporters say a rule would reduce fear and keep state courts focused on state matters. Meanwhile, the case for federal courthouse enforcement has shifted under Trump, who reversed Biden-era protections in schools, hospitals and courthouses. New guidance instructs ICE officers to pursue civil enforcement when credible information indicates a target will be present, preferably in non-public areas and in coordination with court security. Using courthouses can reduce risks because entrants are screened for weapons, ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons said.

The Department of Homeland Security reported it was on pace to deport 600,000 people by the end of Trump’s first year back in office, with more than 65,000 held in detention as of mid-November. Other states have moved similarly: New York’s 2020 law limits civil arrests in courthouses to cases where federal agents have a criminal warrant or judge’s order, surviving a Trump administration lawsuit claiming it obstructed lawful enforcement. Illinois approved a similar ban in October, including a process allowing residents to sue agents who violate rights, while Connecticut passed legislation expanding civil arrest restrictions and restricting face coverings in court. In Michigan, the Supreme Court — where six of seven justices were appointed or nominated by Democratic governors — is now collecting public comments through Dec. 22. Justice Brian Zahra, the lone Republican nominee, opposed even publishing the proposal for comment. A public hearing is planned, and the court may adopt the rule as written, modify it, or reject it entirely.

Of nearly 500 comments submitted by Dec. 1, most support the rule, citing fears that federal enforcement deters people from accessing the justice system. “When people are too afraid to enter the courthouse, they lose access to justice and the entire system suffers,” Michigan attorney Jeremy Orr wrote. Opponents argue that state courts should not interfere with federal immigration enforcement, saying immigration law must be followed uniformly. “Come here legally or ICE will see you to the door,” wrote commenter Victoria Muterspaugh..