The Michigan Supreme Court just dodged a hot-button issue that could have reshaped workplace protections for unauthorized migrants.
According to Michigan Live, the court declined to take up a challenge from the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center against a long-standing state policy that denies workers’ compensation benefits to undocumented workers injured on the job.
Let’s rewind to the roots of this controversy, which trace back to a Michigan Court of Appeals ruling from two decades ago. That decision held that benefits could be withheld if a “crime”—like using false documents to secure employment—prevented someone from working. It’s a tough stance, and Michigan remains among the few states to tie wage loss benefits directly to immigration status.
Fast forward to 2021, when the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center decided to challenge this policy by suing Governor Gretchen Whitmer. They argued the rule was unconstitutional, a claim that could have sparked a major shift in how states handle such benefits.
Unfortunately for the Center, the state Court of Appeals didn’t even get to the meat of the argument. Instead, they tossed the case out, ruling that the lawsuit wasn’t filed within the one-year window required by Michigan law for claims against the state.
The Center didn’t give up, appealing to the Michigan Supreme Court for a lifeline. But the majority of justices weren’t swayed, stating they saw no compelling reason to review the procedural dismissal. It’s a classic case of bureaucracy trumping substance, and it leaves a critical policy question unanswered.
Not everyone on the bench agreed with this sidestep, though. Three justices—Elizabeth Welch, Kimberly Thomas, and Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh—dissented, believing the case deserved a full hearing.
Justice Welch, in particular, argued the Center wasn’t after compensation for past wrongs but sought to stop future harm. “The notice provision only applies to claims based on past harms,” she wrote, suggesting the court missed a chance to tackle a forward-looking issue. Justice Thomas echoed this frustration, noting she would have seized the moment to clarify how constitutional claims for future relief can be brought against state officials. Their dissent highlights a missed opportunity to address a policy many see as outdated in today’s complex labor landscape.
Advocates for migrant workers aren’t mincing words about the court’s refusal to engage. David Muraskin, an attorney with FarmSTAND representing the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, called the non-decision a troubling precedent. “The decision not to decide is functionally a green light to the government to go ahead and violate rights with the knowledge that they may be able to procedurally get out of any kind of accountability in court,” he said.
Let’s unpack that for a moment. Muraskin’s point stings—when courts dodge tough issues on technicalities, it can embolden policymakers to skirt accountability, leaving vulnerable workers in the lurch. While the rule of law must stand, surely there’s a better way to balance procedure with justice.
Muraskin hasn’t thrown in the towel, though. “I do hope that at some point we can find a way to vindicate this right,” he added, urging pressure on the governor and legislators to step up. It’s a call to action, but one wonders if political will exists in a state clinging to such a restrictive stance.
The Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, which launched its farmworker and immigrant rights program in 2017, has been fighting an uphill battle. By 2019, they had to hire more attorneys just to handle the flood of calls, many tied to the state’s refusal to offer benefits based on immigration status. It’s a sign of how deeply this policy impacts real lives.
Critics of progressive labor agendas might argue that rules are rules—unauthorized migrants shouldn’t expect benefits if their employment stems from legal violations. Yet, there’s a human angle here: workers, regardless of status, face real injuries and deserve a system that at least debates their plight fairly, not dismisses it on a filing deadline.
As this issue lingers unresolved, Michigan remains an outlier, denying wage loss benefits purely on immigration grounds. The state’s Office of the Attorney General offered no comment, leaving observers to wonder if silence signals satisfaction with the status quo. For now, the court’s inaction keeps a divisive policy intact, and the fight for change shifts to the political arena—where it may face even steeper odds.
