Joining a host of other states, the Michigan Supreme Court released a draft rule prohibiting "the civil arrest of a person while attending a court proceeding or having legal business in the courthouse," which would likely bar most Immigration and Customs Enforcement detentions.

The proposal issued Wednesday was supported by all Michigan Supreme Court justices except Justice Brian K. Zahra, who would not have published the matter for public comments, the order said. Comments on the proposal are due by Dec. 22, the court said, noting that this is a shorter than normal period.

If passed, the rule would be one of several measures cropping up around the country to prevent courthouse arrests, including the 2020 Protect Our Courts Act, signed by New York's governor to effectively bar most civil arrests at state courthouses. The constitutionality of the New York act was put to the test this week when a federal judge rejected the U.S. Department of Justice's preemption claims.

In 2020, California and Colorado made it illegal to arrest people for civil matters in their courts and the Cook County, Illinois, Circuit Court in Chicago put forth a general administrative order in October reiterating the common law privilege against civil arrest while attending court.

Illinois legislators are waiting for another bill, HB13, aimed at preventing civil arrests at a number of locations including courthouses to be signed by the state's Gov. J.B. Pritzker.

Dan Schneider, who is of counsel at Legal Action Chicago and worked on the courthouse aspects of the proposed Illinois law, said that all of this legislative action came about because "there absolutely have been an increase in immigration agents picking people up when they are going to and from court proceedings."

"The federal government shows how this kind of extreme conduct can get in the way of courts doing what they are doing," he said, adding that the protection against being arrested for civil matters when showing up in court "goes back hundreds of years."

He said the right comes from the time of English common law courts, but recently, the right is not being respected, explaining states' moves toward codification.

Some state rules against arrest go farther than others.

In Connecticut, a state court policy issued in September prevents law enforcement from obscuring their faces inside courthouses and stated "no person shall be subject to arrest while inside the public areas of a courthouse except pursuant to a judicial warrant or order issued or signed by a judicial officer."

The legislation Schneider is backing would extend the area where arrests are prohibited to within 1,000 feet of courthouses, he said.

Schneider acknowledged that this wouldn't uniformly prevent all civil arrests, including immigration actions, but said preventing all arrests wasn't really the point.

"The point of this is to make sure whatever needs to happen happens after court proceedings are done," he said.

Schneider said those who oppose protecting against civil arrests in court may believe that the government should be able to "do whatever they want to wherever they want" to enforce the law.

"Whether you have a witness going to a murder trial or a domestic violence victim — they just don't care," he said.

Another set of detractors have concerns that preventing civil arrests through legislation that is written too broadly could put local law enforcement at risk if they, for example, arrest someone for a civil matter not knowing they are on the way to court, Schnieder said.

He discounted this as a possibility, saying that under his state's proposed legislation, only knowing violations were illegal.

The U.S. Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Michigan justice who opposed his state high court's proposed rule did not immediately respond to requests for comments.

Immigration attorney Carl Hurvich of the Brooks Law Firm often deals with clients involved in criminal matters and said "there is certainly a valid interest in state courts in allowing people to attend court proceedings without fear of being arrested."

He said this was particularly important when some undocumented people appearing in court may be "witnesses that the state thinks are in the public interest."

Hurvich said that in Rhode Island, where he practices, there has been a recent push to promote virtual hearings to prevent ICE arrests and allow for state court participation without fear. However, he said he has also heard stories of clients being arrested at their lawyers' offices at the time virtual hearings are scheduled.

One of his clients was detained when showing up at court to pay a driving-related fine and state protections against civil arrest might help people in her position, but Hurvich noted there are plenty of public areas where ICE may continue to detain people.

However, he said ICE often preferred to detain people in courthouses because metal detectors prevent weapons and individuals cannot easily run away.

Hurvich said the overall impact of state legislation or court rules against civil arrest on the number of people detained by the government "given their current policy and very large budget is somewhat limited," but he still supported state court efforts to push back against federal interference.

--Editing by Kelly Duncan.