In a bold stand against judicial overreach, Michigan House Republicans have fired back at a proposal that could turn state courthouses into safe zones for certain civil arrests.
Michigan House Republicans, led by State Rep. Bradley Slagh of Zeeland, who chairs the House Corrections and Judiciary budget subcommittee, have sent a letter criticizing a proposal by Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh. The proposal, introduced in November, would prohibit civil arrests in courthouses for individuals attending proceedings or handling legal business. While not explicitly targeting immigration enforcement, it would effectively limit federal agents from detaining unauthorized migrants with civil warrants during court appearances for minor offenses.
According to Just the News, the issue has sparked intense debate over the role of the judiciary versus the legislature. Slagh, supported by 11 other House Republicans, contends that the Michigan Supreme Court is stepping beyond its authority by proposing such a rule. This concern hinges on the principle of separation of powers, a cornerstone of governance that ensures no single branch oversteps its bounds.
In at least five other states—California, Illinois, New York, Oregon, and Connecticut—similar restrictions on courthouse arrests have been enacted. Notably, in most of those cases, the rules were passed by legislatures, not courts, reinforcing Slagh’s argument that such policy decisions belong outside the judicial realm. It’s a distinction that cuts to the heart of democratic accountability.
“Judges are not lawmakers,” Slagh declared, driving home the point with clarity. His words aren’t just rhetoric; they reflect a genuine unease about courts crafting rules that could sidestep federal immigration policies established by Congress and past presidents. If courthouses become off-limits for enforcement, what’s next for the rule of law?
The proposal has been in a public comment period for two months, drawing over 2,500 responses compared to just five for other proposals. That level of engagement signals how deeply this issue resonates with Michiganders. It’s not just a courtroom policy—it’s a lightning rod for broader concerns.
Many state Democrats have voiced support for Cavanagh’s idea, seeing it as a way to ensure access to justice without fear of unrelated detentions. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has backed the measure, arguing it won’t significantly hinder federal immigration enforcement. But does minimal impact justify altering the purpose of a courthouse?
“All told, the impact of the proposed amendment on ICE’s operations will be minimal,” Nessel stated. She added, “And any impact is far outweighed by the need to protect and preserve the people’s fundamental right to participation and accountability in the fair administration of justice.” While her intent may be noble, prioritizing access over enforcement risks sending a message that laws can be selectively applied.
On Jan. 14, the Michigan Supreme Court held a public administrative hearing to discuss the proposal. Justice Brian K. Zahra, the sole Republican on the seven-member court, expressed reluctance to advance the rule during its initial consideration. His hesitation hints at internal divisions that could shape the outcome.
While it remains uncertain if the rule will be adopted, reports suggest it’s likely to move forward. If it does, Slagh has warned of potential consequences, particularly regarding state funding for court operations. It’s a fiscal lever that could force a reckoning if the judiciary pushes ahead.
The idea of courthouses as neutral ground for justice—not as barriers to federal law—sits at the core of this pushback. If state courts can opt out of enforcing certain policies, it muddies the waters of national consistency on immigration matters. That’s not just a Michigan problem; it’s a precedent with far-reaching implications.
Slagh’s caution about funding isn’t a mere bluff but a reminder that legislative oversight of budgets can act as a check on judicial decisions. Turning courthouses into zones where federal enforcement is curtailed could erode public trust in the system’s ability to uphold laws uniformly. It’s a gamble with high stakes.
This proposal, while framed as protecting court access, sidesteps the reality that justice must balance fairness with accountability. Allowing certain civil arrests to be off-limits in courthouses might comfort some, but it risks undermining the very purpose of those buildings as places where laws are upheld, not selectively dodged.
As Michigan waits to see if the Supreme Court will finalize this rule, the divide between judicial intent and legislative authority remains stark. The debate isn’t just about immigration enforcement—it’s about who gets to draw the lines of policy in a system built on checks and balances. And that’s a question worth watching closely.
