If adopted, the measure would apply to “civil arrests” at court facilities unless a judge has signed a specific warrant. The exact language of the order says it’s an amendment to “prohibit the civil arrest of a person while attending a court proceeding or having legal business in the courthouse.”

MORE NEWS: Detroit School District’s Lawsuit Windfall Spent on Hiring More Classroom Help

Christine Sauvé with the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center told Michigan Public that the presence of ICE near courthouses can “deter people from using the courts and accessing the court process that they need to preserve individual rights for well-being and again for public safety.”

Other states, including New York and Illinois, have adopted similar rules.

Open comment period: talk now or forever hold your peace.

The state court administrator, Tom Boyd, says this new rule isn’t a done deal. The state is taking feedback through December 22. There will also be a public hearing on the matter.

Boyd says, “The publication process could result in a rule that looks exactly like this or a rule that looks different from this. Or no rule at all. It’s really just an open ended inquiry.”

You can comment on the issue by December 22 by clicking on the “Comment on this Proposal” link under this proposal amendment (MCR 8.115) on the Court’s Proposed & Adopted Orders on Administrative Matters page. You may also submit a comment in writing at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909 or via email at ADMcomment@courts.mi.gov. When submitting a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2025-14. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.

The Michigan Supreme Court invites public comment because transparency and public input are part of the administrative rule-making process. But the justices aren’t bound by those comments. They weigh the feedback, consider constitutional questions, look at how other states handle similar issues, and ultimately use their own judgment to decide whether to adopt, change, or reject the rule entirely.

MORE NEWS: Michigan Tree Gets the Presidential Treatment This Christmas

At the time of the publication of this article, there were 50 online comments already, 47 in favor of the new rule and three against. Cecilia Martinez-Torteya said, “I support this proposal. No ICE in the courts! Protect our democracy!” On the other side is Alexander Hamil who said, “I do not support the new rule prohibiting arrests at Michigan courthouses. President Trump won the election in Michigan and removal of illegal immigrants was a core campaign promise. The federal government controls immigration and we are not a rogue state.”

The stakes: access to justice vs. enforcement power.

Whether this becomes a new courtroom norm or fades out after the comment period, the debate cuts right to the heart of how Michigan balances access to justice with enforcement concerns.