The Michigan Supreme Court on Wednesday adopted a rule change that requires judges and attorneys in the state to use preferred pronouns for individuals involved in court proceedings.
The decision has sparked both support and dissent among the justices, reflecting the ongoing national debate surrounding gender identity and language.
Justice Elizabeth Welch, a Democrat-nominated member of the court who concurred with the rule change, emphasized the need for the judiciary to adapt to changes in language and societal norms.
“We serve the entire public and are required to treat those who come before us with civility and respect,” Justice Welch wrote. “The gender identity of a member of the public is a part of their individual identity, regardless of whether others agree or approve.”
Justice Welch acknowledged that using gender-neutral pronouns such as “they” might require some adjustment but argued that society has navigated grammatical shifts throughout history.
People who identify as non-binary or transgender may refer to themselves as they/them as a singular personal pronoun.
Justice Kyra Harris Bolden, another Democratic nominee, concurred with Justice Welch, saying that the rule change aimed to ensure that all individuals, regardless of their chosen pronouns, received dignity and respect in court.
“[The amendment] aims to prevent judges from discriminating based on gender identity,” she wrote. “It ensures that judges respect people.”
Justice Bolden acknowledged that the “judicial canons already require treating every person with courtesy and respect” but said the amendment is “merely a more detailed example of how judges must act.”
Conservative Justice ‘Deeply Troubled’ by ‘Ill-Founded’ Decision
However, not all justices agreed with the rule change. The dissenting opinions came from Republican-nominated justices.Justice David Viviano said the decision was “ill-founded,” and expressed concerns about the court wading into “socially and politically fraught topics that have little to do with the judicial system.”
He noted that the court’s “ethical rules already require that judges treat parties with respect,” questioned the court’s authority to make rules related to substantive law, and warned of the potential consequences of judges engaging in policymaking.
“Justice Welch believes today’s action is necessary to instill public confidence in the courts by reflecting ’societal shift[s],'” Justice Viviano wrote. “Respectfully, I disagree on how courts acquire and maintain the public’s trust.”
He went on to say that courts “invariably alienate” one side of the political debate “and forfeit legitimacy with large portions of the public” when they “dabble in politics.”
In another dissenting opinion, Justice Brian Zahra said he was “deeply troubled” by the court’s decision.
He argued that the issue of preferred pronouns was a “fluid political debate” and suggested that existing ethical rules already required judges to treat all individuals with courtesy and respect.
“Such hubris has no place within the operation of a judicial branch of state government,” Justice Zahra wrote.
He expressed concerns about the potential for the rule to create problems and cause confusion within the courts, and stoke division in the community.
“This proposed rule change is much worse than a solution in search of a problem; it is a directive that will undoubtedly inflame conflict and exacerbate the social division of the people of Michigan,” Justice Zahra wrote.
“It is unprecedented for this Court to take such swift action in the face of such a novel and evolving issue,” he added.
Earlier this year, 12 Michigan Court of Appeals judges and 23 trial court judges signed separate letters opposing the rule change proposal.
