��������

Since 2013, Michigan judges could force non-English-speaking criminal defendants whose income exceeds a certain threshold to reimburse the courts for interpreters. This is on track to change.

In a push for what it calls “effective assistance,” the Michigan Supreme Court has proposed an amendment to court rules that would require courts to cover the cost of interpreters for all criminal defendants. “It should be non-controversial,” said John Nevin, spokesperson for the Michigan Supreme Court. “Indigent or non-indigent, costs are covered.”

Currently, those deemed “non-indigent,” or those with a household income 125% above the federal poverty level or more, may be required to pay for interpreter services. The costs can add up.

“When we use an individual provider for language services, the cost ranges from $90 to $240 per case, per person needing an interpreter,” said Nancy Hames, director of docket support services at Third Circuit Court in Detroit.

Proponents of the rule change say there should be no cost to the individual for services that make the hearing accessible.

The federal poverty level is “outdated” and “based on erroneous assumptions,” said University of Michigan law professor Eve Brensike Primus. “The move is in line with other movements around the country to not require poor people who are accused of committing crimes to reimburse the government for expenses,” she said.

Jay Drick, chairman of the Livingston County Board of Commissioners, opposes the amendment. Drick, in a public comment on the proposed rule, wrote that any cell phone has the ability to translate court proceedings, suggesting efforts to supplant the existing rule are based upon “notions and feelings.” “It’s not the fault of the state of Michigan taxpayers that a person in criminal court has not learned English” he said.

Macomb County District Court Judge William Hackel III wrote in a public comment: “Without the ability to seek some form of reimbursement, this could become fairly expensive for local district court funding units, and I do not believe one should presume the local funding units will just ‘up’ this line item in the budget without cuts to other areas in a court’s budget.”

However, supporters of the amendment say it’s necessary for courts to absorb the cost. “I don’t think that access to constitutional rights is subject to a popularity test,” said Christopher Vreeland, a public defender in Coldwater. “It costs money. And it’s costing money right now. And frankly, that’s just the cost of doing business.”

In a joint statement with the American Civil Liberties Union, the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center said, “eliminating reimbursement for interpreting costs would also establish a criminal court system that is fairer and more equitable to all litigants, regardless of their English proficiency.”

Detroit Free Press (8/13/25) By Allana Smith