• About
  • Team
  • Contact
  • Editorial Standards
  • Core Values
  • Terms of Service
  • Privacy Policy
  • Affiliate Disclosure
Resist the Mainstream
No Result
View All Result
STORE
  • Politics
  • US
  • Media Watch
  • World
  • COVID
  • Story of Hope
  • Opinion
    • Cartoons
NEWSLETTER
Get Ad-Free Login Manage Account
  • Politics
  • US
  • Media Watch
  • World
  • COVID
  • Story of Hope
  • Opinion
    • Cartoons
No Result
View All Result
Resist the Mainstream
No Result
View All Result

Michigan Supreme Court Considers Forcing Judges to Use Preferred Pronouns for Attorneys, Litigants

RTM Staff by RTM Staff
March 10, 2023
0
Michigan Supreme Court Considers Forcing Judges to Use Preferred Pronouns for Attorneys, Litigants

Karen Neoh, flickr.com/photos/kneoh/14931652922

RELATED

Sen. Kennedy Surprises Mayorkas by Interrupting Testimony for Shoulder Pat, Handshake After Tense Exchange

Watch: Lawmakers Get Into Hallway Shouting Match Over Gun Violence as Democrat Calls Republicans ‘Cowards’

Michigan’s highest court is considering a rule change that would require judges to refer to attorneys and litigants by their preferred pronouns.

ADVERTISEMENTS
ON
OFF

The Michigan Supreme Court sent a notice on January 18 that it was considering an amendment to Rule 1.109 of the Michigan Court Rules to force courts to comply with attorneys’ and parties’ desired pronouns in speech and in writing. Now, over a dozen Michigan judges and attorneys have expressed concern for what the rule’s implications would mean for free speech and religious liberty.

Advertisements

“Parties and attorneys may … include any personal pronouns in the name section of the caption, and courts are required to use those personal pronouns when referring to or identifying the party or attorney, either verbally or in writing,” the proposed rule states.

Michigan judges and attorneys are writing to the court and speaking out about the problematic amendment. In an eight-page response to the proposed rule, William R. Bloomfield, general counsel for the Diocese of Lansing, said that it would be a direct violation of the First Amendment.

“In brief, requiring courts, i.e., judges, to use a person’s own designated personal pronouns is an unconstitutional violation of free speech and free exercise of religion,” he wrote, adding, “And as vital as the interest in free speech is for ordinary citizens, or groups of citizens, it is perhaps even more important for judges to be free of any compulsory speech.”

Advertisements

Michigan religious liberty attorney Timothy Denney told The Daily Wire that “this proposed preferred pronoun rule would violate the compelled speech principle.”

“The Michigan Supreme Court’s proposed rule to force judges to use attorney’s preferred pronouns violates the First Amendment,” Denney said. “The First Amendment prohibits government from compelling public officials to make statements contrary to their beliefs.”

Denney pointed to Meriweather v. Hartop, a case where the Sixth Circuit ruled that a public college could not force a professor to use the preferred pronouns of a trans-identifying student. That court’s decisions are binding in Michigan.

Read the full story here.

Scroll down to leave a comment and share your thoughts.

TRENDING TODAY

Police Chief Reveals Nashville Shooter Audrey Hale Had Another Target in Mind
US

Police Chief Reveals Nashville Shooter Audrey Hale Had Another Target in Mind

by RTM Staff
March 29, 2023
Autopsy Results Revealed for Death of Georgia Dad Found Rolled in Carpet
Politics

Autopsy Results Revealed for Death of Georgia Dad Found Rolled in Carpet

by Gary Ray
March 29, 2023


This is an excerpt from The Daily Wire.

© 2023 Resist the Mainstream

Get Ad-Free Login Manage Account
No Result
View All Result
  • Newsletter
  • Store
  • Politics
  • US
  • Media Watch
  • World
  • COVID
  • Story of Hope
  • Opinion
    • Cartoons
  • About
  • Team
  • Contact
  • Editorial Standards
  • Core Values
  • Terms of Service
  • Privacy Policy
  • Affiliate Disclosure

© 2023 Resist the Mainstream