-LRB- CNN -RRB- -- Michigan 's Supreme Court issued an order Tuesday allowing lower state courts to `` exercise reasonable control '' over the appearance of witnesses and parties , a rule change proposed after a Muslim woman refused to remove an Islamic garment in a small claims court . A niqab is a garment that covers the entire face and head , except for the eyes . The order allows courts `` reasonable control over the appearance of parties and witnesses '' so as to `` ensure that the demeanor of such persons may be observed and assessed by the fact-finder and ensure the accurate identification of such person . '' The order , which amends a rule of the Michigan Rules of Evidence , is effective September 1 . The amendment was prompted by a 2006 small claims case in Michigan filed by Ginnah Muhammad , who wore a niqab -- a garment that covers the entire face and head , except for the eyes -- to court , the order said . According to the Detroit Free Press , Muhammad was contesting a $ 2,750 repair bill from a car rental company because she said thieves broke into the vehicle she was using . As she prepared to testify , Judge Paul Paruk asked her to remove her niqab , saying he needed to be able to see her face to tell whether she was telling the truth , according to court documents . `` I ca n't see certain things about your demeanor and temperament that I need to see in a court of law , '' Paruk said at the time . Muhammad refused , saying that she was a practicing Muslim and would take off the veil only in front of a female judge . Paruk said a female judge was not available and told Muhammad she could remove the niqab or have her case dismissed -- she chose the latter , according to court documents . She sued the judge in federal district court , which declined to exercise jurisdiction over the case . Muhammad has since appealed to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals . The Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations issued a statement saying that if the amended rule was interpreted broadly , it could `` not only adversely affect Muslim females who wear the head scarf , but could also be used to violate Jewish , Sikh , and other people of faiths ' constitutional rights under the First Amendment while in Michigan courts . '' It added , `` As a civil rights advocacy group , CAIR-MI is concerned about individuals who may be reluctant to report crimes or petition the courts out of fear that their religious rights may be violated . '' Other religious groups , as well as the American Civil Liberties Union and domestic violence groups , had opposed the rule change , the Detroit Free Press reported . The ACLU had asked that the court add a sentence to the rule saying `` that no person shall be precluded from testifying on the basis of clothing worn because of a sincerely held belief , '' the newspaper reported in May . CAIR also said that it would announce on Wednesday the filing of a federal lawsuit against a Wayne County , Michigan , judge who had asked a Muslim woman to remove her head scarf in court . `` The Muslim plaintiff felt so intimidated by the judge 's repeated demand that she eventually removed her head scarf , '' the organization said in a statement released Tuesday . CAIR-MI is a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit being filed on behalf of the Michigan woman , who is a member of the group . Last month , the Judicial Council of Georgia adopted a policy allowing religious head coverings in the state 's courtrooms , the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported .