(The Center Square) – Michigan House Republicans sent a letter criticizing a proposal from Supreme Court Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh that would limit certain immigration arrests inside state court buildings.
State Rep. Bradley Slagh, R-Zeeland and chair of the House Corrections and Judiciary budget subcommittee, is leading the charge.
He argued in the letter, which was also signed by 11 other House Republicans, that this rule would undermine public safety and the rule of law in Michigan.
“This misguided proposal seems to contradict the very purpose of the court buildings themselves, which is to provide a place where laws are enforced and justice served,” the letter said.
Cavanagh first proposed the rule back in November. It would prohibit civil arrests from taking place in a courthouse “while attending a court proceeding or having legal business in the courthouse.”
While not directly singling out immigration enforcement, this rule would implicitly stop federal law enforcement from arresting illegal immigrants with civil immigration warrants who are in court for minor offences.
So far, at least five other states have passed similar rules., including California, Illinois, New York Oregon and Connecticut.
In most of those states, the rule was passed by the legislature. Slagh argued in the letter that Cavanagh and the Michigan Supreme Court is violating the separation of powers with the proposal.
“Judges are not lawmakers,” he said. “For your court to propose that federal immigration laws, which have been properly passed by Congress, and signed into law by past presidents (both Republican and Democrat), not be applied in Michigan courthouses threatens to undermine the uniformity of our system of immigration.”
Many state Democrats have come out in support of the rule, which was in a public comment period for the last two months. It received more than 2,500 public comments, compared to others which received just five.
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel was one of those. Nessel argued it should have minimal impacts on ICE enforcement.
“All told, the impact of the proposed amendment on ICE’s operations will be minimal,” Nessel said, “And any impact is far outweighed by the need to protect and preserve the people’s fundamental right to participation and accountability in the fair administration of justice.”
The court had a public administrative hearing for the rule on Jan. 14. In the initial rule, Justice Brian K. Zahra said he would have declined to move forward with the proposal. Zahra is the only Republican on the seven-member court.
It is unclear if it will move forward with the rule, though it is likely. If the court does though, Slagh threatened there could be an impact on funding.
“Should the Michigan Supreme Court choose to move forward with implementing the rule, making our courthouses ‘sanctuary buildings,’ it is difficult to see how this would not have an impact on the future funding of some court operations, as the courthouse would now be an impediment to the efficient administration of justice,” Slagh said.
