Michigan’s Supreme Court declined to review a lower-court ruling that upheld a law denying indemnity benefits to undocumented workers who used fraudulent documents to obtain employment.
The case stems from a lawsuit filed in 2021 by the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center against Governor Gretchen Whitmer.
The group argued it suffered harm after its farmworker legal assistance program was overwhelmed with requests from undocumented workers seeking help with denied benefits.
The organization traced the problem to a 2003 Michigan Court of Appeals decision. That ruling held that a statute barring indemnity benefits for workers unable to work due to committing a crime applies to individuals who used false documents to secure employment.
A trial court initially sided with the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, finding that the one-year statute of limitations for suing the state did not apply because the group sought only prospective relief.
The Court of Appeals reversed that decision.
The appellate court said the one-year notice requirement did apply. It pointed to the fact that the organization launched its legal assistance program in 2017 and expanded staffing in 2019 to handle rising demand related to farmworker benefit issues.
Based on that timeline, the court concluded the deadline to sue the state expired sometime in 2020. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate ruling without issuing an opinion.
Three justices dissented. They said the court should have taken the case and reversed the lower ruling. In their view, the one-year notice requirement does not apply to claims aimed at preventing future harm.
One dissenter wrote that statutes of limitations and notice rules govern declaratory actions tied to past injuries, not those based on anticipated or ongoing future harm. The Michigan Immigrant Rights Center’s claims fell squarely in that category.
According to Beinsure analysts, the decision leaves intact a legal framework that continues to shape workers’ compensation eligibility in Michigan, while narrowing the window for advocacy groups to challenge similar statutes through prospective relief claims.
