It’s so precious that they think this means anything
Michigan Supreme Court moves to curb courthouse immigration arrests
The Michigan Supreme Court adopted a new rule aiming to limit law enforcement’s ability to make civil arrests — including immigration arrests of suspected noncitizens — in state and local courtrooms.
The amended rule, which took effect May 1, prohibits civil arrests of people “going to, attending, and returning from” places they’re required to attend in any of Michigan’s trial or appellate courthouses, covering parties in court cases, attorneys, witnesses and jurors. It would not interfere with criminal or court-ordered arrests.
The change adds Michigan to the list of states trying 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.
Proponents believe such language helps mitigate fears that showing up to a courthouse could end in an arrest or racial profiling.
I wonder how this is going to work?
But opponents said state courts shouldn’t interfere with federal enforcement activity, arguing that immigration law should be followed both inside and outside of courthouses.
In a concurring opinion published April 29, Justice Noah Hood wrote the amendment “falls squarely within this Court’s rulemaking function and does not exceed it.”
He argued the rule change promotes court safety and accessibility and does not interfere with legislative or executive branch mandates.
Yeah, well, Hood wrote
Second, and relatedly, the amendment does nothing to impair federal or state executives from lawfully executing existing laws. For example, under the amendment, a county sheriff could potentially still coordinate and cooperate with federal authorities to execute lawful administrative immigration detainers.1
So, basically he’s saying that this rule really won’t stop federal agents, or even state agents, from detaining someone over a civil matter at court. You know, where it’s usually safer because the subjects do not have weapons.
Also in the order
At first blush, it would seem that the proposed court rule would apply to ICE agents. MCL 600.1821 does not discriminate in regard to who makes the arrest. Indeed, MCL 600.1821(9) states:
Every person making or procuring a civil arrest contrary to [MCL 600.1821(1) through (7)] is guilty of contempt of court and is liable to the person arrested in double the amount of damages which a jury finds that he has sustained and also is liable in an action at the suit of any injured person for the loss, hindrance, and damage the injured person has sustained in consequence of the arrest.
Yeah, well, good luck arresting ICE agents.
