In brief
In a significant move, the Michigan Supreme Court is contemplating a proposal that would prohibit law enforcement from making civil arrests in courthouses. This includes immigration arrests of suspected noncitizens. Advocates argue that such a rule is necessary to combat fear among immigrants and ensure participation in judicial proceedings. If approved, Michigan could join other states like New York and Illinois in limiting immigration enforcement within local courts.
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 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.
But 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.
Why now?
It’s unclear how many arrests have been made in courthouses, though one analysis 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. Reed and Loren Khogali, director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, first called on Michigan courts to change the rules in April after a US citizen was mistakenly detained by federal immigration enforcement outside Plymouth’s 35th District Court.
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. Even the possibility of ICE or border patrol agents at courthouses can deter people from showing up to court at all, complicating prosecutors’ ability to secure witness testimony and potentially endangering people seeking state court assistance on issues like child custody or domestic violence.
“A rule would definitely go a long way to address fear,” Reed said. “To simply make the state court a place where state matters are adjudicated and not address these federal civil immigration matters there, it’s really a practical response by the Supreme Court that we’re very supportive of.”
The case for courthouse enforcement
Guidelines introduced under former President 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 Trump’s second term. The latest guidance instructs U.S. 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 guidelines indicate that 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.”
In October, the U.S. 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.
What other states are doing
Several states already had laws or policies limiting civil arrests in local and state courts before Trump’s second term began, and officials in other Democratic-leaning states have more recently considered the change. New York’s 2020 law passed during Trump’s first term allows only federal agents with a criminal warrant or an order from a judge to make arrests in state or local courthouses.
Illinois lawmakers approved a ban on courthouse civil immigration arrests in October, while Connecticut recently passed legislation barring law enforcement officers from wearing face coverings in court, in addition to limits on civil immigration arrests.
What’s next in Michigan
The Michigan Supreme Court — where six of seven current justices were appointed or nominated by Democratic governors — is collecting written public comments on the proposal, which must be submitted by Dec. 22 to be considered. Court spokesperson John Nevin said the court plans to hold a public hearing before taking action, which “might be as proposed, something different, or nothing at all.” Most of the nearly 500 comments posted as of Dec. 1 support the proposed amendment.
Several opponents of the change argue that state courts shouldn’t interfere with federal enforcement activity, saying 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,” one comment read.
