Oral argument painted a clear picture of the high stakes for workers and civil liberties
Today the Michigan Supreme Court heard oral argument in MIRC v. Whitmer, a case that will determine whether the state can violate the rights of Michiganders with impunity.
The case before the Court is a challenge brought by the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center to the state’s continued denial of workers’ compensation wages to undocumented workers who suffer serious injuries at work. This practice violates Michigan Supreme Court precedent and due process.
In May 2024, Michigan’s Court of Appeals ruled that a lower court should have granted the state’s motion for summary disposition in the case. The Court of Appeals panel did not rule on the merits of the state’s legal obligations to undocumented workers. It ruled instead that MIRC’s suit was not “timely” because the state allegedly started violating workers’ rights more than a year prior, holding that the state’s persistent misconduct is what insulates it from suit.
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case is not only about the rights of workers. It is also about the rights of all Michiganders to challenge their state’s illegal conduct in court. MIRC and its legal team from FarmSTAND and Sugar Law Center, along with amicus partners at the ACLU of Michigan and United Farm Workers Foundation, now await the court’s decision, which is expected by June 2026.
“Today, we made clear to the Michigan Supreme Court that it must overturn the intermediate Court of Appeals and allow this vital legal challenge to go forward,” said David Muraskin, Managing Director for Litigation at FarmSTAND, who argued for MIRC today. “Justice for undocumented workers who keep their neighbors housed and fed is at stake, and so are the rights of all Michiganders to challenge their state’s illegal conduct in court.”
“We brought this case after hearing the plight of so many immigrant workers who were seriously injured on the job, after falling off roofs or crushed by tractors, and they did not receive the same benefits as their coworkers.” said Anna Hill Galendez, Managing Attorney at the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, said: “The court’s decision will determine whether we can continue to pursue justice for these workers. After all, going to work should not mean having to gamble your health, your livelihood, or the ability to care for your family. If we want work conditions that are dignified, fair, and healthy, we must ensure the workers compensation system is administered as intended – to protect all workers.”
John Philo, Executive & Legal Director of the Sugar Law Center for Economic & Social Justice, said: “Workers compensation’s grand bargain begins to collapse when we don’t pay the promised benefits and when some workers are covered and not others. Excluding seriously injured undocumented workers from wage loss benefits is not only unconstitutional and illegal, but also deeply immoral. These practices reward unsafe employers and their insurance carriers while leaving seriously injured immigrant workers destitute and undermining every Michigan resident’s right to a safe and healthy workplace.”
“The outcome of this case could have far reaching implications,” said Phil Mayor, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU of Michigan. “It is not a partisan issue. This is about whether Michiganders – all Michiganders – can go to court to stop the government from breaking the law or, whether, as the government would have it, if they’ve gotten away with breaking the law for one year, they can just keep doing it indefinitely. This is all the more important in a time when our federal courts are not rising to the challenge of protecting our civil liberties, increasing the importance that Michigan’s state courts be available to do so.”
“We have seen hardworking individuals get injured on the job at no fault of their own. Injuries that have changed their life dramatically, by not being able to provide for their families’ basic needs,” said Amanda Villa, State Director for the UFW Foundation in Michigan. “Getting injured at work should never mean losing your income or ability to take care of your family.”
Photos from the oral argument can be found here.
Recording from Monday’s press conference can be found here.