Dear Members of the Catholic Lawyers Society of Metropolitan Detroit,

On April 14, the attorney directors of the Society’s Board of Directors approved a statement (please see document below) to the Michigan Supreme Court opposing ADM File No. 2022-03, which would amend MCR 1.109(D)(1)(b) to require judges to use a party or attorney’s “personal pronouns … either [orally] or in writing.”  As noted in the statement, our judicial directors abstained because they may be called upon to review and interpret the rule if it is adopted.  See the full text of the proposed court rule at https://www.courts.michigan.gov/48efd1/siteassets/rules-instructions-administrative-orders/proposed-and-recently-adopted-orders-on-admin-matters/proposed-orders/2022-03_2023-01-18_formor_propamdmcr1.109.pdf.

Very briefly, we are opposing the proposed rule as an unconstitutional attempt to compel speech in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, while also infringing upon Catholic judges’ religious liberty rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the right to worship guaranteed by the Michigan Constitution. If adopted, the proposed rule would force Catholic judges to either affirm an ideology that is directly contrary to Catholic teaching or risk judicial discipline proceedings. 

If this rule is adopted, we can expect that the requirement to use false pronouns will soon be extended to attorneys and others in the legal system, with consequences not only for Catholics but also for anyone who does not agree with the notion that human identity is subjective and malleable.  See, e.g., Nicholas Meriweather, “The truth about my stand against a university’s enforced orthodoxy,” The Hill, Sept. 28, 2020 (“What I cannot do, however, is to speak in such a way that implies that a man is a woman or a woman a man. In other words, to refer to a student in such a way that I imply something that is not true, that I know to be false, to effectively lie, and so violate my conscience as a philosopher and as a Christian.”).  See also Meriweather v Hartop, 992 F3d 492 (CA 6, 2021). 

We strongly encourage you to join us in opposing ADM File No. 2022-03. You may submit your own statement or simply submit a comment that you agree with the statement adopted by the board. Also, since anyone (not just lawyers) may express their views on the proposed rule, feel free to share the statement with your fellow parishioners and others who may wish to comment.

Although the deadline for comment was May 1, the Court has posted some additional comments after the deadline (including this supplemental letter submitted by the Society in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in 303 Creative LLC v Elenis).

To comment by email, send an email with a comment to ADMcomment@courts.mi.gov. If commenting by e-mail, please be sure to reference ADM File No. 2022-03 in the subject line. 

To comment by U.S. mail, send your comment to the Office of Administrative Counsel, P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909.