|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
December 19, 2025 |
|
LANSING – Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel sent a letter to the Michigan Supreme Court yesterday in support of the Court’s proposed amendment of Michigan Court Rule 8.115, which would generally prohibit civil arrests of individuals who attend court proceedings or conduct other business in a courthouse. In the letter, Attorney General Nessel stressed that the fair administration of justice depends on public participation, which requires unfettered access to courthouses. Creating an environment where people fear civil arrests – whether they are victims, parties, witnesses, or simply courtroom observers or those doing business in the courthouse – discourages participation, undermines accountability, and erodes trust in the justice system.
“When people are afraid to report crimes or come to court because they fear a civil arrest, it puts victims at risk and makes our communities less safe,” Nessel said. “It’s my sincere hope that the Michigan Supreme Court adopts this amendment to protect access to justice for everyone.”
The Attorney General noted that several states already provide similar protections, including New York, Connecticut, and Illinois. Attorney General Nessel also addressed the amendment’s implications on civil immigration enforcement. The broad language of the proposed rule would limit certain civil arrests by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in administrative and non-criminal matters within courthouses. She cited recent federal litigation upholding New York’s courthouse protections, where the Court recognized that ICE’s own prior policies acknowledged that courthouse arrests can deter individuals from reporting crimes or pursuing civil rights claims.
These prior federal policies, Attorney General Nessel noted, restricted civil immigration enforcement actions in or near courthouses to limit circumstances in order to preserve access to justice. The Attorney General stressed that ICE’s historical compliance with such policies shows that civil enforcement operations can continue effectively without courthouse arrests.
Attorney General Nessel also noted that the proposed amendment would not invalidate ICE warrants, interfere with judicial warrants, or prevent civil arrests outside courthouses. Any impact on ICE operations, she concluded, would be minimal and far outweighed by the need to protect the public’s fundamental right to participate in the justice system.
###
|
|
|
|
