News

Are you a section member? Login to access our pilot page, On the Docket: a one-stop resource to get caught up on recent caselaw, legislation, and other information affecting the LGBTQ+ community. Find it in the News tab after logging in.

Comment in Support of the Proposed Amendment to MCJC 3 and MRPC 6.5

June 12, 2025

This Section supports the proposed amendments to MCJC 3 and MRPC 6.5 (ADM File No. 2023-35), to the extent that it adds language to define protected classes, while strongly urging that any language requiring lawyers, judges, and litigants to treat one another with “respect” and “courtesy” be retained. Removal of the express expectation of civility would undermine professionalism in the courtroom, disproportionately harm marginalized communities—including LGBTQ+ individuals—impede oversight and enforcement by disciplinary and judicial bodies, and risk normalizing discourteous and exclusionary conduct. While welcoming clarity around protected classes, preserving explicit standards of respect and courtesy is essential to ensuring equal access to justice and maintaining public confidence in the legal system.

Read the full statement here.

Comment in Support of the Proposed Amendment to M Crim JI 20.31, 20.32, and 20.33

February 27, 2025

This Section supports the proposed amendments to the Model Criminal Jury Instructions 20.31, 20.33 and for the deletion of M Crim JI 20.32, contending this update aligns the instructions with Supreme Court precedent in Lawrence v Texas, 539 US 558 (2003). Antiquated, homophobic statutes such as MCL 750.158 should not be used when other, appropriate charges exist. The Section urges modernization of language across the model instructions—replacing binary pronouns (he/she) with gender-neutral “they/their” in keeping with Michigan Supreme Court Administrative Order 2022-03 and MCR 1.109 to better reflect and respect all gender identities. This Section also recommended amending the MCJI 20.33 use note to read “person who identifies as female” to ensure clarity, inclusivity, and equal access to justice.

Read the full statement here.

Response to the Department of Education's "Dear Colleague" Letter Directing Schools to End Racial Preferences

February 27, 2025

This Section calls for the rescission of the U.S. Department of Education's "Dear Colleague" Letter (DCL) issued on February 14, 2025, which directs schools to reject discussions of systematic racism and threatens loss of federal funding for non-compliance. The DCL letter comprises several troubling elements, including potential violations of constitutional rights, overreach, and misapplication of Supreme Court rulings related to diversity programs. The letter contradicts the Department’s stated mission to promote educational excellence and equal access by attempting to censor historical truths and marginalize the experiences of people of color and LGBTQ+ individuals. This Section calls for the rescission of the DCL, the enforcement of existing civil rights laws, and urges educators and communities to engage in discussions regarding these critical issues.

Read the full statement here.

Response to the Department of the Interior Removal "Transgender" and "Queer" References from Stonewall Website

February 27, 2025

It is the policy of this Section that the removal of "transgender" and "queer" references from the Stonewall National Monument's website, by reducing its inclusive "LGBTQ+" designation to "LGB," misrepresents the historical significance of the Stonewall Uprising, which was predominantly led by transgender and gender non-conforming individuals. The revision reflects a broader pattern of systematic erasure of LGBTQ+ content by the current administration and undermines the National Park Service's duty to present accurate historical information. This Section urges the restoration of these references and the establishment of guidelines to ensure an inclusive and historically accurate representation of LGBTQ+ history.

Read the full statement here.

Response to Executive Order, "Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government”

February 21, 2025

It is the policy of this Section that President Trump’s January 20, 2025, Executive Order misinterprets legal precedent and threatens the constitutional rights of transgender Americans. The Executive Order conflicts with Supreme Court precedent in Bostock v. Clayton County by attempting to redefine sex-based protections, raises serious Equal Protection concerns by restricting gender identity recognition in federal documentation and facilities, and likely violates the Administrative Procedure Act by directing agencies to rescind regulations without proper procedures. Additionally, it threatens access to medical care in federal facilities under the Eighth Amendment and the Affordable Care Act and undermines privacy and due process rights. This Section urges the Department of Justice and federal agencies to reject unlawful provisions, calls for judicial review, and commits to supporting litigation to challenge the Order while continuing to monitor its impact on the community.

Read the full statement here.

Call for Legislation to Eliminate Candidate Deadnaming from Michigan Election Law

October 4, 2023

MCL 168.558(2) requires candidates to disclose former names on affidavits of identity, but its exceptions under MCL 168.558(3) do not account for transgender individuals who have changed their names through gender affirmation. This Section believes this requirement violates the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and conflicts with state and federal precedent which considers discrimination based on gender identity unlawful sex discrimination. To remove barriers for transgender attorneys seeking public office, this Section supports the introduction of legislation to exempt transgender individuals who have been granted a name change from this disclosure requirement.

Read the full policy here.

Comment in Support of the Proposed Amendment to MCR 3.613

August 23, 2023

This Section strongly supports the proposed amendment to MCR 3.613 (ADM File No. 2023-05), which would address financial barriers to name changes for indigent and qualifying petitioners under MCR 2.002. Name change petitions are absolutely invaluable, but the cost of publication presents a significant obstacle, impacting access to employment, housing, and legal recognition for LGBTQ+ individuals. Given the disproportionate poverty rates among LGBTQ+ individuals, particularly transgender individuals, the proposed amendment is an essential step toward ensuring equal access to the courts and aligning Michigan’s judicial process with principles of justice and inclusion.

Read the full comment here.

Response to the U.S. Supreme Court's 303 Creative LLC v Elenis

July 14, 2023

This Section opposes the ruling in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis and advocates for its narrow application to Michigan law. The ruling applies only to highly specific, tailored artistic commissions and has virtually no application to businesses providing goods and services to the public. To ensure full legal protections for LGBTQ+ individuals, this ruling must be read narrowly, while Michigan’s expanded civil rights protections under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and the Michigan Supreme Court's opinion in Rouch World, LLC v. Department of Civil Rights should be interpreted broadly.

Read the full statement here.

Comment in Support of the Proposed Amendment to MCR 1.109

March 24, 2023

This Section strongly supports the proposed amendment to Michigan Court Rule 1.109(D)(1)(b), which would allow parties and attorneys to include their pronouns in a case caption and require the court to use said pronoun if a pronoun is used to refer to that person unless the court believes that use of the designated pronoun would lead to an unclear record. Adopting a rule on pronoun usage would align with consensus in the scientific and medical community regarding transgender identity and gender dysphoria, would expand access to our courts and public confidence in the fairness of our justice system, and would ensure that persons who come before a court can do so with an expectation that they will be treated with courtesy and respect.

Read the full comment here.

Amicus Brief in Michigan Supreme Court's Pueblo v Haas

March 10, 2023

This Section joined an amicus brief with the ACLU of Michigan, Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, Affirmations LGBTQ+ Community Center, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, urging the Michigan Supreme Court to recognize the parental rights of non-genetic parents in same-sex relationship under Michigan law. The brief contends that denying legal parentage to such individuals violates constitutional protections for parent-child relationships and equal protection principles. The brief urges the Michigan Supreme Court to (1) apply the equitable parent doctrine to non-genetic parents from pre-Obergefell same-sex relationships, (2) interpret Michigan’s assisted reproduction statute in a gender-neutral manner to include same-sex parents, and (3) adopt an intended parent doctrine that recognizes parental rights based on the couple’s intent to raise a child together. 

Read the amicus brief here.

Letter to the MSC & COA in Response to the Concurring Opinion in People v Gobrick

January 5, 2022

This Section sent a letter to Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Bridget McCormack and Michigan Court of Appeals Chief Judge Elizabeth Gleicher in response to the concurring opinion by Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Mark Boonstra in People v Gobrick, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued December 21, 2021 (Docket No. 352180). The concurring opinion objected to the majority's usage of the defendant's gender pronouns. Despite his assertions to the contrary, Judge Boonstra’s opinion reflected a lack of understanding of and intolerance towards transgender people and was not consistent with the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct. Accordingly, this Section urges the Michigan judiciary to invest in LGBTQ cultural competency training for judges and to adopt standards of conduct and a style-guide standard for preferred pronoun usage in Michigan courts. 

Read the letter here.

Amicus Brief in Michigan Supreme Court's Rouch World v Michigan Dept of Civil Rights

December 17, 2021

This Section filed an amicus brief in Rouch World v MDCR (Docket No. 162482) urging the Michigan Supreme Court to overturn the Court of Appeals’ opinion in Barbour v Dep’t of Social Services, 198 Mich App 183; 497 NW2d 216 (1993), in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bostock v Clayton Cty, 590 U.S. ___; 140 S Ct 1731; 207 L Ed 2d 218 (2020). The brief contends that the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Read the amicus brief here.

Comment in Support of the Proposed Amendment to MCJC Canon 2(F)

September 5, 2019

This Section supports the proposed amendment to the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2(F), which would strengthen anti-discrimination standards for judges. This Section specifically supports the proposal by the Coalition for Impartial Justice and the Women Lawyers Association of Michigan, that would prohibit a judge from being a member of any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of religion, race, national origin, ethnicity, sex, gender (including transgender), or sexual orientation.

Read the full comment here.

Response to G-4 Visa Restriction

November 20 2018

This Section condemns the U.S. State Department’s decision to restrict G-4 visas to married persons, effectively discriminating against same-sex couples from countries where marriage equality is not recognized. It is the policy of this Section that this restriction endangers LGBTQ+ diplomats and international employees by forcing them to choose between their safety and their ability to live and work in the U.S. This Section joins the International Academy of Family Lawyers and the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers in calling for the immediate reversal of this decision and reaffirms its commitment to global LGBTQ+ equality.

Read the full statement here.

↑ Top