Lawyers And Advocates Express Unanimous Support For Proposal To Bar Most ICE Arrests At Courthouses

Michigan Advance

January 14, 2026

Every speaker at a public Michigan Supreme Court hearing on Wednesday — including lawyers and representatives from advocacy groups from around Michigan — spoke in favor of a proposed rule that would bar civil arrests, including immigration arrests, at Michigan courthouses.

The rule, which was first proposed in November and garnered over 2,500 online comments during the public comment period, would prohibit any civil arrests from taking place in a courthouse “while attending a court proceeding or having legal business in the courthouse” — a policy that would cover most ICE arrests, which are often done under administrative warrants, not judicial warrants.

Most speakers at Wednesday’s hearing emphasized the importance of the proposed rule to allow the judicial process to play out as it is intended, making it so victims, witnesses and litigants feel safe to come into court.

“Immigration enforcement activity in courthouses undermines racial justice when staff and court visitors may be stopped or questioned based on race, accent or perceived immigration status, while their white counterparts pass freely,” said Elinor Jordan, an attorney at the Michigan Poverty Law Project. “It’s traumatic, intimidating and destabilizing.”

The focus of the hearing, though not explicitly mentioned in the text of the proposed rule, was on ICE arrests — so much so that Lisa Varnier, an attorney in Oakland County, urged the justices to add a definition of civil arrests that explicitly includes immigration arrests.

“From my work with immigrants, I can tell you that even though they are fully documented and are in this country with the permission of the federal government, they are absolutely terrified of going to any court building for fear that they will be arrested by ICE,” Varnier said. “Their fear precludes them from participating in criminal and justice, civil justice systems.”

“They are destroying the community’s trust in law enforcement,” continued Emily Duthinh, another Oakland County attorney. “This undermines law and order and makes all of us less safe.”

If this rule is approved by the state’s Supreme Court, it would place Michigan alongside states like New York, Connecticut and Illinois that have similar policies in place.

“Other courts have implemented such rules, and they have been found not to be preempted by federal law,” said Syeda Davidson, a staff attorney for the ACLU of Michigan. “Absent a clear and manifest purpose expressed by Congress, there is a presumption against federal law preempting state law.”

Eli Savit, the Washtenaw County Prosecuting Attorney and a candidate for state Attorney General, was the sole elected official to speak during the hearing, highlighting how the fear of immigration has made it harder to prosecute cases.

“Since last year, we have seen a troubling increase in victims who are non-citizens failing to show up to court to testify against their abusers. I’ve talked to colleagues across the state and indeed, across the nation, and this is a trend that they are all experiencing,” Savit said. “I just want to highlight exactly what that means. 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.”

The Michigan Supreme Court’s seven justices will make the final decision on whether or not to adopt the rule and any changes to be made. The sole Republican on the court, Justice Brian Zahra, had stated on the initial proposal that he would have declined to publish the proposal for comment.

The Michigan Advance, a hard-hitting, nonprofit news site, covers politics and policy across the state of Michigan through in-depth stories, blog posts, and social media updates, as well as top-notch progressive commentary. The Advance is part of States Newsroom, a national 501(c)(3) nonprofit supported by grants and a coalition of donors and readers.