In a historic decision, the Michigan Supreme Court recently approved a groundbreaking rule to ensure that judges use pronouns consistent with the preferences of parties and lawyers involved in legal proceedings. This innovative move sets Michigan apart as the first state to introduce such a progressive policy in its courtrooms. The rule, which received a 5-2 majority vote, is slated to take effect from January 1st, according to reports from the Associated Press, Courthouse News Service, and Reuters.
A Landmark Ruling for Inclusive Language
Under this newly established rule, judges are now mandated to employ pronouns that align with the expressed preferences of the parties and attorneys involved in the case at hand. In a concurring opinion, Justice Elizabeth Welch highlighted that judges who choose not to utilize the designated pronouns have the alternative option of employing neutral forms of address, such as “Attorney Smith” or “Plaintiff Smith.”
Preferences Clearly Defined
The rule allows parties and lawyers to specify their preferred forms of address and pronouns within the name section of case captions. These preferred forms of address encompass Ms., Mr., or Mx. The available pronoun groups consist of he/him/his, she/her/hers, or they/them/theirs.
Flexibility in Addressing Parties and Attorneys
In line with the new rule, judges have the flexibility to use a person’s name, their preferred salutation, personal pronouns, or “other respectful means that is not inconsistent with the individual’s designated salutation or personal pronoun” when addressing, referring to, or identifying the party or attorney, whether in oral communication or written documents.
A Divisive Debate
While the rule passed with a majority vote, it did not come without controversy. Justice Brian Zahra, one of the dissenting voices, noted that the proposed rule had generated substantial comments, both in support and opposition, before its adoption. He argued that this issue remains a dynamic and contentious political debate, suggesting that the judicial branch should not have intervened to resolve it.
This landmark ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court signifies a significant step toward fostering more inclusive and respectful language within the state’s legal system, setting a precedent that may inspire similar initiatives in other jurisdictions across the United States.
Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.