The Michigan Supreme Court’s recent proposal to amend judicial conduct rules to explicitly prohibit bias and harassment has ignited considerable debate within the state’s legal community. This initiative follows the court’s 2023 decision mandating that judges use individuals’ preferred pronouns, a move that previously sparked discussions on free speech and judicial impartiality.
The proposed amendments aim to incorporate provisions from the American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically targeting the prohibition of bias and harassment based on characteristics such as gender identity and sexual orientation. The court has invited public comments on these changes, with the comment period set to expire on July 1, 2025. ([milawyersweekly.com](https://milawyersweekly.com/news/2025/05/02/michigan-court-rule-amendments-2025/?utm_source=openai))
Opposition to the proposal has been vocal. Critics argue that the amendments could infringe upon free speech rights and impose ambiguous standards on legal professionals. For instance, attorney Wayne G. Wegner expressed concerns that the proposal might create a “speech code for lawyers,” potentially leading to disciplinary actions for expressions that the bar association disagrees with. ([news.bloomberglaw.com](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/michigan-courts-wade-back-into-culture-war-with-anti-bias-plan?utm_source=openai))
Supporters of the amendments contend that explicit rules are necessary to protect marginalized groups within the legal system. Zoe Hayes, co-president of the University of Michigan’s OUTlaws LGBTQ+ group, emphasized the importance of providing a framework for individuals to identify and address instances of bias, especially in a climate where such communities feel under attack. ([news.bloomberglaw.com](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/michigan-courts-wade-back-into-culture-war-with-anti-bias-plan?utm_source=openai))
The court’s previous pronoun rule, which required judges to use individuals’ preferred pronouns or other respectful means of address, was enacted over the dissent of two justices. Justice Brian K. Zahra, who opposed the pronoun rule, also voted against advancing the current anti-bias proposal for public comment. ([news.bloomberglaw.com](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/michigan-courts-wade-back-into-culture-war-with-anti-bias-plan?utm_source=openai))
As the July 1 deadline approaches, the Michigan Supreme Court continues to solicit feedback from the legal community and the public. The outcome of this deliberation could have significant implications for judicial conduct and the broader discourse on free speech and anti-bias measures within the state’s legal framework.
The Michigan Supreme Court’s recent proposal to amend judicial conduct rules to explicitly prohibit bias and harassment has ignited considerable debate within the state’s legal community. This initiative follows the court’s 2023 decision mandating that judges use individuals’ preferred pronouns, a move that previously sparked discussions on free speech and judicial impartiality.
The proposed amendments aim to incorporate provisions from the American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically targeting the prohibition of bias and harassment based on characteristics such as gender identity and sexual orientation. The court has invited public comments on these changes, with the comment period set to expire on July 1, 2025. ([milawyersweekly.com](https://milawyersweekly.com/news/2025/05/02/michigan-court-rule-amendments-2025/?utm_source=openai))
Opposition to the proposal has been vocal. Critics argue that the amendments could infringe upon free speech rights and impose ambiguous standards on legal professionals. For instance, attorney Wayne G. Wegner expressed concerns that the proposal might create a “speech code for lawyers,” potentially leading to disciplinary actions for expressions that the bar association disagrees with. ([news.bloomberglaw.com](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/michigan-courts-wade-back-into-culture-war-with-anti-bias-plan?utm_source=openai))
Supporters of the amendments contend that explicit rules are necessary to protect marginalized groups within the legal system. Zoe Hayes, co-president of the University of Michigan’s OUTlaws LGBTQ+ group, emphasized the importance of providing a framework for individuals to identify and address instances of bias, especially in a climate where such communities feel under attack. ([news.bloomberglaw.com](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/michigan-courts-wade-back-into-culture-war-with-anti-bias-plan?utm_source=openai))
The court’s previous pronoun rule, which required judges to use individuals’ preferred pronouns or other respectful means of address, was enacted over the dissent of two justices. Justice Brian K. Zahra, who opposed the pronoun rule, also voted against advancing the current anti-bias proposal for public comment. ([news.bloomberglaw.com](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/michigan-courts-wade-back-into-culture-war-with-anti-bias-plan?utm_source=openai))
As the July 1 deadline approaches, the Michigan Supreme Court continues to solicit feedback from the legal community and the public. The outcome of this deliberation could have significant implications for judicial conduct and the broader discourse on free speech and anti-bias measures within the state’s legal framework.