LANSING, Mich. -- The chairman of the House Corrections & Judiciary budget subcommittee is raising concerns about a proposed court rule that would prohibit the enforcement of federal immigration laws within Michigan court buildings.
State Representative Bradley Slagh of Zeeland and 11 other House Republicans sent a letter to Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh saying the proposal would undermine public safety, violate constitutional principles, and threaten the integrity of the judicial system.
Slagh said the proposed ICE ban would turn the court houses would be turned into safe havens from federal law enforcement.
He represents the 85th District, which encompasses parts of Ottawa County, including Georgetown and Zeeland Township, the cities of Hudsonville and Zeeland, and parts of Jamestown and Holland townships.
Here is the rest of the House GOP news release:
“Courthouses exist to uphold the law, but this rule would choose to selectively ignore it,” said Slagh, R-Zeeland. “It would turn places meant for justice and accountability into safe havens from federal law enforcement. That’s not something the Legislature can simply overlook.”
In the letter, lawmakers argue the rule contradicts the fundamental role of courts and improperly places the judiciary in a lawmaking role reserved for the legislative branch of government.
“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 reads. “The proposal could make our courthouses refuges for dangerous and unlawful individuals.”
The letter also cautions that transforming courthouses into “sanctuary buildings” could have consequences for court operations and funding, particularly given the Legislature’s constitutional role in appropriations.
Slagh emphasized that House Republicans want to continue working cooperatively with the judicial branch but warned that cooperation depends on respect for constitutional boundaries.
“We want to be constructive partners with the courts,” Slagh said. “But partnership requires transparency, respect for the Constitution, and an understanding that policy decisions of this magnitude do not belong in court rules that are rushed through with limited public input.”
The lawmakers requested further discussion on the proposal and offered to hold a public subcommittee hearing to allow information to be shared openly with lawmakers and the public.
###