U.S. District Judge Robert Jonker issued a preliminary injunction blocking Michigan from enforcing a provision of its revamped civil rights law against pro-life organizations. The provision, tucked into the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act after a 2023 overhaul, bars employers from discriminating against employees who obtained abortions or abortion-related insurance.
The problem: that language effectively forces pro-life employers to hire and retain staff who publicly reject the organization's core mission.
Right to Life of Michigan and a Pregnancy Resource Center brought the challenge, arguing the law compels religious and ideological organizations to employ people whose actions directly contradict their beliefs. Judge Jonker agreed the law likely "threatens and impairs" the groups' First Amendment rights — and froze it.
Brian Neihart, the attorney representing the pro-life groups, put it plainly. The "bottom line," he said, is that the First Amendment must protect their right to employ people who agree with their beliefs "without the threat of government punishment."
That's not a radical legal theory. It's the kind of principle that used to be so obvious it didn't need a court case. A pro-life organization should be able to staff itself with people who are, in fact, pro-life. An environmental group doesn't have to hire coal lobbyists. A synagogue doesn't have to employ someone hostile to Judaism. The concept is called organizational mission, and until recently, it wasn't controversial.
Michigan changed its civil rights law in 2023 after voters approved Article I, Section 28 of the state constitution — the reproductive freedom amendment. Governor Gretchen Whitmer said the legislative changes brought state law "in line" with the constitutional amendment. The Michigan Civil Rights Commission backed it with a formal resolution.
But "in line" apparently meant something broader than voters were told. The amendment was sold as protecting individual reproductive decisions. The law that followed weaponized those protections against employers whose entire purpose is advocating the opposite position. That's not alignment. That's a backdoor mandate.
The pattern is familiar. Since 2020, religious and ideological groups across multiple states have been forced to challenge anti-discrimination laws that were quietly expanded beyond their original scope. The laws get passed under inclusive-sounding language. The enforcement mechanisms get aimed at the organizations least likely to comply. Then the First Amendment has to clean up the mess.
Judge Jonker's injunction is preliminary — it freezes enforcement while the case moves forward, not a final ruling. But preliminary injunctions require the judge to find the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits. Jonker looked at the law, looked at the First Amendment, and concluded the pro-life groups will probably win.
When a federal judge tells a state government that its civil rights law likely violates the Constitution, the reasonable response is to revisit the law. The Michigan response will almost certainly be to appeal and call it an attack on reproductive freedom.
The amendment said individuals get to make their own reproductive choices. The law said organizations don't get to make their own hiring choices. One of those is in the Constitution. The other just got frozen.
