������Ƶ

Michigan Supreme Court moves to curb courthouse immigration arrests

A new Michigan Supreme Court rule aims to limit courthouse arrests of suspected noncitizens. Photo credit: Josh Boland/Bridge Michigan.

by Lauren Gibbons, Bridge Michigan

The Michigan Supreme Court this week adopted a new rule aiming to limit law enforcement ability to make civil arrests — including immigration arrests of suspected noncitizens — in state and local courtrooms.

, which takes effect Friday, prohibits civil arrests of people “going to, attending, and returning from” places they’re required to attend in any of Michigan trial or appellate courthouses, covering parties in court cases, attorneys, witnesses and jurors. It would not interfere with criminal or court-ordered arrests.

The change adds Michigan to the list of states trying to following court proceedings, which have ramped up in recent months as President Donald Trump administration cracks down on illegal immigration.

Proponents believe such language helps mitigate fears that showing up to a courthouse could end in an arrest or racial profiling.

Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel previously told Bridge Michigan that the threat of immigration enforcement in courthouses was “causing havoc on untold levels” and preventing people from coming to court in cases unrelated to immigration.

Justices heard from more than 2,500 individuals and organizations while considering the change, which was initially proposed last fall.

Most of the online comments supported the amendment, citing concerns that people who are attempting to handle legal matters the appropriate way might be deterred from doing so by federal immigration authorities.

But opponents said state courts shouldn’t interfere with federal enforcement activity, arguing that immigration law should be followed both inside and outside of courthouses.

In a concurring opinion published Wednesday, Justice Noah Hood wrote the amendment “falls squarely within this Court rulemaking function and does not exceed it.”

He argued the rule change promotes court safety and accessibility and does not interfere with legislative or executive branch mandates.

The court lone Republican nominee, Justice Brian Zahra, called the rule change “unnecessary and ill-advised” in a dissenting opinion. He predicted it could create new problems in the state due to enforcement difficulties.

“In sum, this proposed amendment is at best a political statement framed as a solution in search of a problem,” he wrote.

Immigration arrests

States don’t have jurisdiction over what happens in immigration courts, which are federal property, and cannot bar arrests there. The new rule applies to state and local courthouses across Michigan.

It unclear how many arrests have been made in courthouses since Trump ramped up deportation efforts.

One identified 2,388 likely arrests in federal immigration courts nationwide between May and July 2025, including nine in Detroit.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan around civil arrests in April after an incident outside Plymouth 35th District Court, where

Immigration arrests appear to be less common when a person with no criminal history heads to a local courthouse to pay traffic tickets or testify in a hearing, but not unheard of.

But immigration rights advocates applauded the Michigan court move to join New York, Connecticut, Illinois and other states in limiting arrests in local courts.

“Often simply the presence of ICE or Border Patrol near a courthouse, or the possibility of their presence, is enough to deter a range of individuals from accessing a critical court process they need for their safety or well-being,” Christine Sauve of the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center said in a statement.

“Today amendment is a commonsense safeguard that benefits all Michiganders.”

Trump challenges

The Trump administration has unsuccessfully challenged similar policies in other states as “sanctuary” measures that obstruct lawful arrests.

A federal judge last year that argued a similar policy in New York was unconstitutional and prevented federal authorities from apprehending criminals.

In filing the suit, Attorney General Pam Bondi the New York law amounted to a “sanctuary” policy “to prevent illegal aliens from apprehension” that contradicted Trump January executive order declaring a national emergency at the southern border with Mexico.

Guidelines introduced under former President Joe Biden limited immigration arrests in courthouses and other so-called “protected areas” like schools, hospitals and places of worship. Those rules were reversed in January on the first day of President Donald Trump second term.

The latest guidance instructs US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to pursue civil immigration enforcement in or around courthouses “when they have credible information that leads them to believe” a person of interest will be present at a specific location.

The guidance indicates civil immigration enforcement actions in or near courthouses should take place in non-public areas of the facility where possible and be “conducted in collaboration with court security staff.”

Using courthouses as a venue for civil immigration enforcement can reduce safety risks for federal agents and the public, ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons , because individuals entering courthouses are typically screened for weapons or other contraband by law enforcement before entering.

This first appeared on and is republished here under a .

by Sara Swanson

Sara Swanson is an editor, writer and a founder of the Manchester Mirror.