Law enforcement would be barred from making civil arrests — including immigration arrests of suspected noncitizens — in state and local courtrooms under a proposal being considered by the Michigan Supreme Court.
The proposed rule change announced last month 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 arrests.
If adopted, the amendment would add Michigan to the list of states attempting to limit immigration arrests following court proceedings, which have ramped up in recent months as President Donald Trump’s administration cracks down on illegal immigration enforcement.
States don’t have jurisdiction over what happens in immigration courts, which are federal property, and cannot bar arrests there.
Advocates argue Michigan should join New York, Connecticut, Illinois and other states in limiting arrests in local courts, which they contend could deter immigrants from attending court hearings.
“It’s an issue that affects everyone when you have any part of the population that is afraid to come and participate in our court proceedings,” said Susan Reed, executive director of the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center.
The Trump administration has unsuccessfully challenged similar policies in other states as “sanctuary” measures that obstruct lawful arrests.
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.
Reed and Loren Khogali, director of the 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 U.S. 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.
Using courthouses as a venue for civil immigration enforcement can reduce safety risks for federal agents and the public as individuals entering courthouses are typically screened for weapons or other contraband.
Several states already had laws or policies limiting civil arrests in local and state courts, and Democratic-leaning states continue to consider similar changes. The Michigan Supreme Court is currently collecting written public comments on the proposal, which must be submitted by Dec. 22 to be considered.
The proposed rule change announced last month 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 arrests.
If adopted, the amendment would add Michigan to the list of states attempting to limit immigration arrests following court proceedings, which have ramped up in recent months as President Donald Trump’s administration cracks down on illegal immigration enforcement.
States don’t have jurisdiction over what happens in immigration courts, which are federal property, and cannot bar arrests there.
Advocates argue Michigan should join New York, Connecticut, Illinois and other states in limiting arrests in local courts, which they contend could deter immigrants from attending court hearings.
“It’s an issue that affects everyone when you have any part of the population that is afraid to come and participate in our court proceedings,” said Susan Reed, executive director of the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center.
The Trump administration has unsuccessfully challenged similar policies in other states as “sanctuary” measures that obstruct lawful arrests.
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.
Reed and Loren Khogali, director of the 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 U.S. 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.
Using courthouses as a venue for civil immigration enforcement can reduce safety risks for federal agents and the public as individuals entering courthouses are typically screened for weapons or other contraband.
Several states already had laws or policies limiting civil arrests in local and state courts, and Democratic-leaning states continue to consider similar changes. The Michigan Supreme Court is currently collecting written public comments on the proposal, which must be submitted by Dec. 22 to be considered.
