Michigan ADM 2019-40 and the In-Person Gap: When Remote Justice Creates Uneven Access

What ADM 2019-40 Would Do

The Michigan Supreme Court is considering revisions to the rules governing when judges may participate in proceedings remotely. The revised proposal under ADM File No. 2019-40 would allow judicial officers to preside remotely in proceedings that do not require their physical presence, subject to several limitations. A judicial officer would generally need to remain within Michigan, stay within geographic limits tied to the courthouse or the judge’s residence, and maintain the ability to return to the courthouse when in-person proceedings become necessary. Additional requirements include continuous video participation, courtroom symbols and decorum standards, recording requirements for remote hearings, and monitoring and reporting of remote participation by the State Court Administrative Office. On its face, the proposal is administrative housekeeping — courts adopted remote proceedings rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the judiciary has been refining those practices ever since. But the debate around ADM 2019-40 exposes a deeper tension.

The Uneven Reality of Courtroom Access

Michigan court rules preserve the importance of in-person proceedings. Participants may request to appear physically, and criminal defendants retain strong rights to appear in court rather than participate remotely. But real courtroom practice does not always unfold as neatly as the rules suggest. Public comments submitted during the rulemaking process have already raised concerns about inconsistent application across courts, and some legal groups have warned that vague language could produce different practices county to county. That risk becomes clearer in concrete terms: in one widely discussed Michigan case, a practicing attorney undergoing cancer treatment sought accommodations related to courtroom participation during ongoing proceedings. The request highlighted a growing tension — judges and court staff increasingly rely on remote technology to manage hearings and administrative matters, yet litigants and attorneys must sometimes fight to obtain similar flexibility even when serious health or logistical barriers are present.

That disconnect is not necessarily the result of bad faith. More often it reflects the uneven evolution of court rules, local practices, and administrative expectations. But the effect can feel the same. Institutional actors receive flexibility as a matter of operational efficiency. Individual participants must request it as an exception.

The Legitimacy Question

Courts derive legitimacy from physical presence as much as from legal authority. The courthouse is where the public can observe proceedings, where litigants can stand before the state, and where justice becomes visible. Remote technology can expand access in some circumstances and reduce travel burdens. But when remote participation becomes a privilege primarily exercised by institutional actors, the courthouse itself can begin to feel less accessible — not through an explicit two-tier system, but through something subtler: flexibility that distributes unevenly, without a rule that says so.

Why Watching Administrative Files Matters

Most public attention focuses on appellate decisions and high-profile trials. The policy that shapes how courts operate — who can appear, how, under what conditions, with what accommodations — emerges through administrative rulemaking files like ADM 2019-40. Tracking those files reveals how the judiciary adapts to technological change and evolving expectations about access. It also reveals where the system is still finding its footing. Remote judging can increase efficiency. In-person proceedings reinforce legitimacy. The rules being debated now will determine whether Michigan builds a system that expands access for everyone, or one that distributes flexibility according to institutional convenience.