The Michigan House Judiciary Committee on Oct. 29 adopted a substitute (H-3) to Senate Bill 82, the Judicial Protection Act, after a hearing that drew lengthy public comment and sponsor explanation. Committee members voted to adopt the substitute and then reported the bill with recommendation by roll call, with the clerk announcing 11 ayes, 0 nays.

Sponsor staff told the committee the measure was developed with input from a work group of state and federal judges and the State Bar of Michigan and that the current version incorporates feedback from county registers of deeds and internet-data firms. Alan Heintz, chief of staff for Sen. Stephanie Chang, described the bill as a reintroduction of earlier legislation intended to protect judges and their families from targeted threats.

Public testimony included repeated opposition from speakers who said the bill would reduce transparency in probate and guardianship proceedings and could hide conflicts of interest or misconduct. Jody White of Livonia said, “Why shield judges while probate courts destroy families?” and described what she called years of unresolved probate disputes; Tom Howell cited constitutional and press-access concerns, and Cynthia Mifsud said the bill, as written, “allows judges to hide all property addresses, including investment or commercial holdings,” creating a loophole that could obscure conflicts tied to probate cases.

Committee members and sponsors repeatedly separated the intent of SB82 from broader calls for guardianship or probate reform. Representative Johnson told speakers, “This bill in no way invalidates your concerns for injustice done to you and your families,” while Representative Breen said personal safety threats against judges and elected officials were real and warranted protections that would not prevent financial disclosure responsibilities.

The committee adopted the H-3 substitute and reported SB82 with recommendation to the full House. The substitute’s text and any implementing trailer bills were discussed as likely to include detailed procedures for requests and redactions handled by administrative offices. The committee record shows the substitute was adopted and reported in the same session (roll call recorded at 11–0).