Michigan’s most consequential justice debates are not happening in courtrooms or campaigns. They are happening inside rulemaking dockets.
While headlines chase trials and verdicts, the Michigan Supreme Court is quietly revisiting the rules that determine who can be arrested, who remains in custody, and when appellate courts actually retain control over a case.
These are procedural questions. And not only are they technical, but they are where rights most often disappear.
This article examines two proposed rule debates now circulating in Michigan’s judicial system and why they form a critical Procedural Integrity cluster that deserves public attention.
MCR 8.115: Courthouse Arrests and the Illusion of Neutral Space
The proposed amendment to MCR 8.115 would restrict civil arrests inside courthouses.
On paper, this sounds narrow. In practice, it exposes a fundamental tension: are courthouses spaces of justice, or are they enforcement traps?
The Problem
For years, individuals have been arrested inside courthouses on unrelated civil matters. People appear to resolve disputes, attend hearings, or comply with court orders, only to be detained the moment they step inside the building.
Naturally, this creates a chilling effect:
- People avoid court appearances.
- Witnesses hesitate to testify.
- Civil litigants fear compliance will trigger custody.
- People lose parenting rights
In these instances, the courthouse ceases entirely to function as neutral ground.
The Integrity Issue
Courts rely on voluntary appearance. Arresting people in that space weaponizes compliance, converting procedural participation into an exercise in risk.
This is not about public safety. It is about whether procedure is being used as leverage instead of protection.
The debate over MCR 8.115 is a rare moment where Michigan is being forced to confront whether its justice infrastructure respects basic human dignity or quietly undermines it.
MCR 7.215: Retained Jurisdiction and the Remand Problem No One Talks About
The second debate is even less visible but arguably more dangerous.
MCR 7.215 governs how the Michigan Court of Appeals handles remands and whether it retains jurisdiction after sending a case back to a lower court.
This very much matters because remands are not suggestions; they are instructions.
What Goes Wrong
In practice, remands are often treated informally:
- Trial courts behave as if jurisdiction has fully returned.
- Appellate oversight becomes nominal.
- Errors identified on appeal are “fixed” procedurally but not substantively.
The result is a system where appellate correction exists on paper but evaporates in execution, defeating the purpose of the appeal in the first place, wasting time and money.
Why This Matters Now
Recent Michigan Supreme Court interventions highlight significant failures in handling remands. And if Judge Michael Schipper’s behavior is any indicator, these are not isolated mistakes; they are systemic.
When appellate courts fail to retain meaningful jurisdiction, trial courts regain unchecked discretion too quickly and use it as an opportunity to defy the higher court. And that discretion frequently manifests as:
- The same bad, reissued sentences
- Uncorrected guideline errors
- Continued custody despite acknowledged procedural flaws
And this is how the state keeps people trapped in the system and incarcerated after appellate courts flag problems. And Judges and Prosecutors face no repercussions for this wasteful behavior.
Why These Two Rules Belong Together
MCR 8.115 and MCR 7.215 appear unrelated, but let me assure you they are not.
Both govern how power moves through the system:
- Who can be detained and where
- When oversight actually applies
- Whether procedure protects people or exposes them
They represent completely opposite ends of the same pipeline. One controls entry into custody and the other controls exit from judicial error.
When both fail, the system becomes self-sealing.
Why This Matters
Procedural integrity is not a technical obsession. It is quite literally the last line of defense when personalities, politics, and sound judicial discretion fail.
People actively harmed by the justice system are not harmed by jury verdicts. They are harmed by:
- Improper arrests
- Informal remands
- Unclear jurisdiction
- Quiet and sloppy procedural shortcuts
These proposed rule changes are not academic housekeeping. They are an admission that Michigan’s system has allowed procedure to drift way too far from accountability.
Clutch Justice exists to slow these moments down. To make rules legible. To show how small procedural failures compound into lasting harm.
Because justice does not collapse all at once; it erodes quietly, rule by rule.
Article FAQ: Procedural Integrity in Michigan Courts
Procedural integrity refers to whether courts consistently follow established rules governing notice, jurisdiction, custody, remands, and arrest authority. When procedures are ignored or inconsistently applied, individual rights are lost without formal rulings or public scrutiny.
The Michigan Supreme Court is considering amendments to multiple court rules in 2026, including limits on civil arrests in courthouses and clarifications around appellate remands. These proposals respond to long-standing procedural failures that affect defendants, litigants, and court authority statewide.
Because most harm in the justice system happens without retrials. It happens through quiet custody, informal practices, and procedural shortcuts that never generate headlines but permanently alter people’s lives.
