The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a new policy that mandates the use of “preferred pronouns” in state courtrooms, making the state the first in the nation to enact such a requirement in legal proceedings.
The new rule, approved by a 5-2 majority in the Michigan Supreme Court, will allow attorneys and litigants to specify their “preferred salutations and personal pronouns” on court records, and judges will be required to adhere to these preferences.
“Parties and attorneys may also include Ms., Mr., or Mx. as a preferred form of address and one of the following personal pronouns in the name section of the caption: he/him/his, she/her/hers, or they/them/theirs. Courts must use the individual’s name, the designated salutation or personal pronouns, or other respectful means that is not inconsistent with the individual’s designated salutation or personal pronouns when addressing, referring to, or identifying the party or attorney, either orally or in writing.”
Michigan Supreme Court decision
Justice Elizabeth Welch, one of the five justices who approved the state rule, expressed the rationale behind this progressive move, stating, “We serve the entire public and are required to treat those who come before us with civility and respect.”
“The gender identity of a member of the public is a part of their individual identity, regardless of whether others agree or approve,” Welch argued.
Opponents of this new rule argue that it will cause confusion and controversy in the courtroom. Justice Welch did admit in her concurring opinion that the shift in courtroom language will cause confusion, especially for older generations. But she went on to imply that the next generation will adjust to these language changes “quickly and with ease.”
But the issue with this rule change is that it goes beyond creating confusion in its contradiction of language, basic biology, and truth. Using “preferred pronouns” in the courtroom can create massive problems in legal contexts where biological sex is crucial, such as Title IX cases. This point was stated when then-candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court Ketanji Brown Jackson stated that she could not define the word woman. In cases where biological sex is a relevant factor in the law, a courtroom must be able to acknowledge basic biological truth.
Questions also emerge about the potential for contradiction and ambiguity within court proceedings when pronouns like “they” are used, with the possibility of misunderstanding whether it refers to a singular or plural entity.
In a dissenting statement of the court’s ruling, Justice Brian Zahra wrote that he was “deeply troubled” by the court’s decision. Zahra explained that this new rule would cause more social division among individuals, not less.
“This proposed rule change is much worse than a solution in search of a problem; it is a directive that will undoubtedly inflame conflict and exacerbate the social division of the people of Michigan,” Zahra wrote. “This court rule is an open invitation to abuse by litigants eager to gain any measure of control over their fight.”
