Michigan Supreme Court mandates judges to use attorneys’ and litigants’ preferred pronouns.
Judges and Court Staff in Michigan Must Use Parties’ Preferred Pronouns, State’s Highest Court Rules
In a groundbreaking decision, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that judges and court staff in the state must use parties’ preferred pronouns. This new rule, which will go into effect on January 1, 2024, requires attorneys and litigants to list their “preferred salutations and personal pronouns” on court records, which judges must then adhere to. Michigan is now the first state to mandate the use of preferred pronouns by judges.
Embracing Civility and Respect
The decision to implement this rule stems from the court’s commitment to treating all individuals with civility and respect. Justice Elizabeth Welch, a Democrat-nominated justice, emphasized the importance of recognizing an individual’s gender identity as part of their overall identity, regardless of others’ opinions or approval.
Understanding the New Rule
According to the new rule, parties and attorneys can include their preferred form of address (such as Ms., Mr., or Mx.) and choose from three sets of personal pronouns: he/him/his, she/her/hers, or they/them/theirs. Judges must use the individual’s chosen name, salutation, or personal pronouns when addressing or referring to them, both orally and in writing. The rule also acknowledges that adapting to preferred pronouns may require some intentionality and practice, especially for those who grew up learning different language rules.
Opposing Views
While the majority of the court approved the new rule, there were dissenting opinions. Justice David Viviano, a Republican-nominated justice, argued that it forces judges into socially and politically contentious topics that are unrelated to the judicial system. Justice Brian Zahra, also nominated by a Republican, expressed deep concern about the decision, believing it will only further divide the state and potentially be abused by litigants seeking control over their cases.
Concerns About Free Speech and Religious Liberty
During the consideration of this rule, several Michigan judges and attorneys raised concerns about its implications for free speech and religious liberty. They argued that it could violate the First Amendment’s protections. William R. Bloomfield, general counsel for the Diocese of Lansing, stated that requiring judges to use designated personal pronouns is an unconstitutional infringement on free speech and religious freedom. Religious liberty attorney Timothy Denney also highlighted the rule’s potential violation of the compelled speech principle, emphasizing that public officials should not be compelled to make statements contrary to their beliefs.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP
As the rule was being considered, The Daily Wire reported that over a dozen Michigan judges and attorneys expressed concern for what the rule’s implications would mean for free speech and religious liberty. Michigan judges and attorneys wrote to the court, speaking out about the problematic amendment.
In an eight-page response to the proposed rule, William R. Bloomfield, general counsel for the Diocese of Lansing, said that it would be a direct violation of the First Amendment.
“In brief, requiring courts, i.e., judges, to use a person’s own designated personal pronouns is an unconstitutional violation of free speech and free exercise of religion,” he wrote, adding, “And as vital as the interest in free speech is for ordinary citizens, or groups of citizens, it is perhaps even more important for judges to be free of any compulsory speech.”
Michigan religious liberty attorney Timothy Denney told The Daily Wire in March that the rule ”would violate the compelled speech principle.”
“The Michigan Supreme Court’s proposed rule to force judges to use attorney’s preferred pronouns violates the First Amendment,” Denney said. “The First Amendment prohibits government from compelling public officials to make statements contrary to their beliefs.”
What religious freedom concerns arise from the requirement to use preferred pronouns, and how do they potentially conflict with deeply-held religious beliefs?
Tial impact on religious freedom, arguing that it may compel individuals with deeply-held religious beliefs to speak or act in ways that go against their conscience.
Supporting Transgender Rights
On the other hand, proponents of the rule argue that it is a necessary step towards promoting inclusivity and respecting the rights of transgender individuals. They believe that using preferred pronouns is a basic act of dignity and recognition, aligning with the growing recognition and acceptance of gender diversity. Advocates state that the rule helps create an environment where transgender individuals feel seen, heard, and respected within the judicial system.
Implementation and Training
To facilitate the smooth implementation of the new rule, the Michigan Supreme Court plans to provide training to judges and court staff on using preferred pronouns respectfully and effectively. This training will aim to address any concerns or difficulties that may arise from the adoption of the new policy. By equipping court personnel with the necessary knowledge and skills, the court hopes to ensure that parties’ preferred pronouns are used consistently and respectfully in all court proceedings.
Setting a Precedent
Michigan’s decision to mandate the use of preferred pronouns by judges sets a precedent for other states to follow. It signals a clear commitment to inclusivity, respect, and recognition of all individuals’ gender identities in the courtroom. This landmark ruling may prompt other states to review their own policies and consider implementing similar rules to promote equality and ensure fair treatment for all parties involved in legal proceedings.
A Step Forward
The Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling on the use of preferred pronouns by judges is a significant step forward in recognizing and respecting transgender rights. By demanding the use of preferred pronouns, the court signals its dedication to creating a more inclusive and equitable judicial system. While some dissenting voices express concerns about potential challenges and conflicts regarding free speech and religious liberty, the court’s decision is a clear statement of support for transgender individuals, their identities, and their right to be recognized and respected within the legal system.
As the rule goes into effect on January 1, 2024, it will be closely observed to assess its impact and potential implications. The Michigan Supreme Court’s decision serves as an example of progress towards equality and demonstrates the ongoing efforts to build a fairer and more inclusive society for all.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...