LANSING, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – In an update to a story that Michigan News Source first brought to you in March of this year, a September 27th order out of the Michigan Supreme Court has set January 1, 2024 as the date that an amendment to Michigan’s court rules will be in effect. That amendment orders the state’s judges and their staff to use the preferred pronouns of the parties and attorneys in their courtrooms – or refer to them by other “respectful means.” The order will be in effect for writings, such as court documents, and also orally.

The statewide rule was approved 5-2 with Justice Elizabeth Welch, who agreed with the new rule, saying, “Judges are ultimately public servants. We serve the entire public and are required to treat those who come before us with civility and respect. The gender identity of a member of the public is a part of their individual identity, regardless of whether others agree or approve.”

MORE NEWS: Noncitizens ‘Generally Not Eligible’ For Food Stamps? In Michigan, There’s More Than 32,000.

Also in agreement is Justice Kyra Bolden who wrote, “While Michigan is the first state court to amend its court rules to expressly include such comprehensive protection for personal pronouns — history is made by being the first.” She added, “We are sending a signal that ‘all members of the public are entitled to inhabit public spaces on equal terms.”

The exact language of the rule says that Michigan courts “must use the individual’s name, the designated salutation or personal pronouns, or other respectful means that is not inconsistent with the individual’s designated salutation or personal pronouns when addressing, referring to, or identifying the party or attorney, either orally or in writing” and “Parties and attorneys may also include Ms., Mr., or Mx. as a preferred form of address and one of the following personal pronouns in the name section of the caption: he/him/his, she/her/hers, or they/them/theirs.”

The new rule allows judges who prefer not to use pronouns to address people by their role in the case (i.e. attorney or plaintiff) followed by their name.

Opponents of the rule, during a public comment period and during a hearing, cited religious reasons for not wanting to address someone by a pronoun that is different from the one they had at birth – and others worried about confusion in court records and constitutional free speech issues.

Those opponents also include Justices Brian Zahra and David Viviano. Judge Zahra said in his dissent, “This is a fluid political debate into which our judicial branch of state government should not wade, let alone dive headfirst and claim to have resolved. Such hubris has no place within the operation of a judicial branch of state government.”

Will Bloomfield, Attorney for the Catholic Diocese of Lansing said about the rule, “One of the founding principles of this country is free speech and free exercise of religion and part of that is we just don’t force people to say things that they disagree with.”

MORE NEWS: No Guesswork, Just Grades: Detroit Teens Fast-Tracked to Wayne State

Supporters of the amended court rules include those from the LGBTQ+ community including Jay Kaplan, staff attorney for ACLU of Michigan’s LGBTQ Project, who spoke during a hearing on the proposed rule calling the amendment “common decency” towards all who come through the court system.

Also speaking at the hearing was Heidi Naasko, an attorney who works with transgender and non-binary individuals. She spoke about how her clients are often misgendered during court proceedings and that “It has caused embarrassment, humiliation and panic to the impacted party.”