In Amendment of Rule 1.109 of the Michigan Court Rules, (MI Sup. Ct., Sept. 27, 2023), the Michigan Supreme Court by a vote of 5-2 adopted a Rule requiring Michigan courts to use the name and personal pronouns listed by parties and attorneys on pleadings in the case when addressing, referring to or identifying a party or attorney orally or in writing. Alternatively, the court may use "other respectful means of address not inconsistent with the individual’s designated salutation or personal pronouns." Two Justices filed opinions concurring in the adoption of the Rule, and two other Justices filed dissents. Justice Welch, concurring, said in part:
[P]eople object to honoring a person’s specified pronouns on the basis that they do not personally agree with the notion that someone can switch genders or be nonbinary. This was the subject of a great deal of the input we received after publishing the proposed amendments. Whether for religious or other reasons, many comments reflected a personal belief that gender could not change. But the rule provides that “other respectful means” can be used to address a party who makes a specific pronoun request. Certainly, asking our judges to be respectful to litigants using other general neutral means (such as addressing a party as “Attorney Smith” or “Plaintiff Smith”) does not force anyone to violate their beliefs.
Justice Bolden concurring said in part:
Some commenters have raised First Amendment concerns, arguing that the amendment compels speech and/or infringes upon religious liberty. However, Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2(A) ...requires judges to “accept restrictions on conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and [they] should do so freely and willingly.”... Similarly, the United States Supreme Court has explained that government employees have certain limitations on their freedom that they must accept in the workplace....
Justice Zahra, dissenting, said in part:
Some believe that the use of preferred pronouns is simply a matter of courtesy and that those who oppose it are stubborn, perhaps even bigoted. Others, however, believe they should not be compelled, especially under oath and/or in conflict with their deeply held religious beliefs, to affirm a person’s preferred pronouns that are inconsistent with the biological gender on that person’s birth certificate. All told, this is a fluid political debate into which our judicial branch of state government should not wade, let alone dive headfirst and claim to have resolved. Such hubris has no place within the operation of a judicial branch of state government. As aptly stated by the Catholic Lawyers Society of Metropolitan Detroit, “[t]he Court should decline to insert itself into one of the most controversial social issues of our time, declare a winner, dismiss objections as mere products of bigotry, and threaten to punish dissenters whilst ignoring their constitutional rights.” I am deeply troubled by the Court’s willingness to do so.
Justice Viviano, dissenting, said in part:
... [A]ll the arguments that the concurrences employ against the constitutional concerns with the present action could in turn be employed to support the opposite rule. I have my doubts that the majority would be so cavalier about the First Amendment implications of their actions if the shoe was on the other foot.
CBS Detroit reports on the new rule.
