The Detroit Free Press recently reported on a disturbing court protocol that erodes due process.
Since 2013, Michigan’s courts have allowed judges to require non-English-speaking criminal defendant with incomes above a certain threshold to reimburse the state for interpreter services.
In effect, this meant that if you spoke a language other than English, and could afford it, you were on the hook to pay for the very interpreter who helped ensure your fair trial. Now, in one of those rare but truly meaningful reforms, the Michigan Supreme Court is set to flip the script.
The Backstory: Interpreter Fees and a Question of Fairness
Under Michigan Court Rule 1.111, in place since 2013, judges had discretion to impose interpreter costs on Limited-English-Proficiency (LEP) individuals, provided their household income exceeded 125% of the federal poverty level, or if paying didn’t “unreasonably impede” their ability to defend themselves.
The idea, as laid out by justices at the time, was supposedly a balanced approach: help those who could not pay and ask those who could to reimburse the state.
But critics were quick to sound the alarm.
The U.S. Department of Justice warned that charging LEP individuals for something as fundamental as language access is akin to a discriminatory “surcharge” and may pressure them into waiving their right to an interpreter altogether. Legal aid and poverty law advocates have long argued that even the threat of fees can chill access to justice. People may feel unwelcome, under suspicion, or too intimidated to seek full court participation.
The Turning Point: The Court’s Move to Prohibit Fees
Fast forward to July 2025, and the Michigan Supreme Court took a momentous step: proposing an amendment to Rule 1.111 that would categorically ban the imposition of interpreter fees on criminal defendants, regardless of their income level.
This isn’t a small tweak; it’s a full-throated recognition that language access is a core element of due process. No defendant should feel penalized or excluded from their own defense just because they don’t speak English natively.
Why It Matters (In Court and in Real Life)
Fairness. Legal proceedings are unintelligible if you can’t understand them. By stripping away fees, courts recognize that understanding your rights is non-negotiable.
Equity. Justice shouldn’t be contingent on your income or your fluency in English.
Stigma. When courts, an arm of the state, ask you to pay just to be heard, it sends a message: you don’t belong here. This reform says otherwise.
System Integrity. A criminal system that only permits true participation is a legitimate system. Interpreter fees, even nominal, are invisible barriers to that legitimacy.
The Road Ahead: Still Waiting—but Better Later Than Never
As of now, the amendment is pending. The Court opened the proposal for public comment, and now it’s a matter of whether justices will cement the change into law.
Even if adopted soon, it applies only to criminal cases. Civil litigants remain subject to cost-recovery measures; something advocates are urging courts to change sooner rather than later.
Call to Action: Make Your Voice Heard
This moment is bigger than court rules. It’s really about whether Michigan believes in equal justice for all, not just for English speakers. Here’s how you can help:
- Contact the Michigan Supreme Court and demand they finalize the ban without delay.
- Push lawmakers to extend interpreter access protections into civil courts, where housing, safety, and family stability are on the line.
- Support advocacy organizations like the Michigan Poverty Law Program and local immigrant rights groups working to ensure fairness for LEP communities.
- Share this story with your networks, because justice only moves when people do.
No one should ever have to pay to understand the charges against them. Michigan has a chance to lead; let’s make sure they don’t back down now.
🖤 Love what we do? Support Clutch.
