• Attorney General Dana Nessel backs proposed Michigan Supreme Court rule change limiting civil arrests in state and local courthouses.
  • The proposal comes as federal government cracks down on illegal immigration, increases civil immigration arrests in or near courts
  • Some Democratic-leaning states have similar policies that have faced challenges from the Trump administration

Should law enforcement be barred from making civil arrests — including arrests of suspected noncitizens — in Michigan’s state and local courthouses? 

It’s a question the Michigan Supreme Court is considering as national tensions flare over the Trump administration’s deportation tactics and a fatal shooting of a US citizen by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer in Minnesota. 

A proposed rule change announced last year by the Michigan Supreme Court — where six of seven current justices were appointed or nominated by Democratic governors — would prohibit civil arrests of people “attending a court proceeding or having legal business” in any of Michigan’s trial or appellate courthouses.

The rule as written would not interfere with criminal or court-ordered arrest warrants, but would cover most civil immigration arrests by federal law enforcement, which are typically administrative warrants. 

RELATED: 

The court didn’t make any final decisions in a brief public hearing on the topic Wednesday, and it’s not clear when they might, but justices heard testimony they’ll weigh alongside more than 2,500 comments submitted by individuals and organizations.

Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel is a prominent supporter of the proposed change and argues the potential rule may help mitigate fears that showing up to a courthouse could end in an arrest or racial profiling. 

“It’s causing havoc on untold levels for us,” Nessel told Bridge Michigan in a Wednesday interview. “No one’s telling ICE that they can’t continue to enforce immigration law, but please don’t do it in a way that interferes with our system of justice and our state courthouses.”

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

No opponents of the change addressed the court on Wednesday, but several wrote in public commentary that state courts shouldn’t interfere with federal enforcement activity, arguing that immigration law should be followed both inside and outside of courthouses. 

“I do not believe the courts should be in the business of making laws from the bench,” Victoria Muterspaugh wrote in one comment submission. “Come here legally or ICE will see you to the door.”

What the rule would do 

If adopted, the new rule would add Michigan to the list of states attempting to limit immigration arrests following court proceedings, which have ramped up as President Donald Trump’s administration works to deport undocumented immigrants amid a crackdown on illegal border crossings.

States don’t have jurisdiction over what happens in immigration courts, which are federal property, and cannot bar arrests there. 

But in state and local courthouses, immigrant advocates say the threat of arrest is preventing people from showing up to traffic court, testifying in hearings or performing other functions.

Since last year, Washtenaw County has seen a “troubling increase” in noncitizen victims of crime failing to show up in court to testify against their abusers, said County Prosecutor Eli Savit, a Democrat who is also seeking the party’s nomination for attorney general. 

“What that means is that victims of crime are frequently more afraid of the judicial system, more afraid of their own government, than they are (of) the person who harmed them,” Savit told justices during Wednesday’s hearing. 

It’s unclear how many arrests have been made in courthouses, though one analysis from mathematician Joseph Gunther identified 2,388 likely arrests in federal immigration courts nationwide between May and July 2025, including nine in Detroit. 

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. 

The Michigan Immigrant Rights Center and American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan first called on Michigan courts to change the rules around civil arrests in April after an incident outside Plymouth’s 35th District Court where a US citizen was mistakenly detained by federal immigration enforcement.

Immigration enforcement in courthouses violates longstanding Michigan law protecting litigants from civil arrests and has “the potential to seriously disrupt the fair and efficient functioning of our state courts,” the directors of both organizations wrote in an April 11 letter.

State courts’ role in immigration debate

A federal judge last year dismissed a lawsuit from the Trump administration 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 had argued the New York law amounted to a “sanctuary” policy “to prevent illegal aliens from apprehension” that contradicted Trump’s 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’s 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 wrote in a May 27 memo outlining the policy, because individuals entering courthouses are typically screened for weapons or other contraband by law enforcement before entering.

In October, the US Department of Homeland Security announced that it was on pace to deport 600,000 people by the end of Trump’s first year back in office, and as of Nov. 16, more than 65,000 people were being held in US detention facilities. 

Nessel told Bridge that law enforcement has typically avoided courthouse arrests because of the potential to disrupt other judicial proceedings. 

She said she’s spoken with judges in Michigan who have had to put traffic court hearings on pause because of “yelling and screaming and crying, and people scattering to the winds” when ICE officers appear at the courthouse.

“They’re probably scouring the dockets at all our courthouses to see if they can find people that they want to apprehend,” Nessel said. “It’s just a dangerous precedent to be set.”

Creative Commons License

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under our Republication Guidelines. Questions? Email republishing@bridgemi.com