Judges who refuse to use "preferred pronouns" during court cases cannot be impartial and, therefore, should remove themselves from cases, Michigan lawyers argued on Wednesday.

The state's Supreme Court held a public comment hearing Wednesday morning, considering a rule that would force courtroom "preferred pronoun" usage for proceedings, including requiring judges to use pronouns a person requests rather than those related to biological gender.

SENATE AIMS TO NAVIGATE CONFLICT BETWEEN COPYRIGHT AND TRAINING AI

Several judges and lawyers have voiced concern about the rule, ranging from the lack of a religious exemption to the confusion surrounding court proceedings.

While some at the hearing argued the rule would violate the religious liberties of judges and counsel who do not believe in gender ideology, others argued the lack of belief is grounds for recusal and would call into question the judge's ability to rule fairly.

"For the small minority of judges who would insist on misgendering someone and insist that that is their legal right, my bigger concern is whether or not a judge who denies central aspects of someone's personhood could then fairly judge the person's case," Kim Cramer, staff attorney at Michigan Legal Help, told the panel of Supreme Court justices.

"There are mechanisms in our courts for recusal if you have a sense of bias around a party that, once you learn some information about their identity, that colors your view of that person such that you don't believe that this person exists and the way they say they do," she continued. "I'm not convinced that there is a reasonably held religious basis for misgendering a person in court."

Cramer's remarks were part of an exchange with Justice Brian K. Zahra, who asked about judges who have sincerely held religious beliefs being unable to use pronouns that do not align with someone's sex.

She added that courts might lose their legitimacy if the court does not go forward with the rule change because of the lack of "procedural fairness."

William Bloomfield, general counsel for the Catholic Diocese of Lansing who was commenting on behalf of Bishop Earl Boyea, said the rule "contradicts the truth of human sexuality."

"Human beings exist as either male or female, a truth long recognized by Michigan law," he said. "The human body has meaning; it is false to deny that."

Bloomfield argued that the rule would amount to compelled speech for judges and would violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

While proponents argued that the rule would solidify a "simple act of courtesy" in using preferred pronouns, Bloomfield said, "Courtesy, tolerance, and compassion extend both ways."

"Where is the courtesy, tolerance, or compassion for those who oppose gender ideology, and think it harmful for individuals and society, yet would be compelled to affirm something they believe is false and even harmful?" he asked. "A Catholic judge should not have to choose between his or her religion and the court rule."

Several presenters opposed to the rule asked the court to clarify the ability to use "gender-neutral" language, such as being able to refer to "counsel Smith" or "plaintiff Jones," as opposed to using a gendered title. It is unclear where the judges stand, but some proponents of the rule do not support the gender-neutral language as it would not "acknowledge the existence of transgender people."

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

In February 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court created the Commission on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Michigan Judiciary and, in June of that year, appointed 24 members to it.

The court's communications director told the Washington Examiner that the timing for a decision is unpredictable but that the justices typically conference after meetings and can make a decision quickly after.