Liberal judges tighten grip on Michigan Supreme Court as sentencing cases loom

• Michigan Supreme Court now a 6-1 liberal majority, with six of seven current justices appointed or nominated by Democrats
• Criminal justice at the forefront of the docket as justices consider cases on sentencing guidelines, search warrants and more 
• Two Supreme Court seats next up for grabs in 2026

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s appointment of Court of Appeals Judge Noah Hood last month to the Michigan Supreme Court solidified the Democratic Party’s near-total majority of nominees to the state’s highest court.  

In the next few months, the court is expected to consider a docket that is heavy on criminal justice, with cases that could impact sentencing guidelines, double jeopardy, search warrants and more. 

Among other things, the court may soon decide whether to end mandatory life sentences for some convicted of felony murder and limit the police’s use of search warrants when it comes to cell phones.

Wayne State University Law School Associate Professor Justin Long predicted the courts will continue to “very incrementally” make big strides in criminal law, an area that’s less likely to be impacted by federal precedent. 

“They’re going to decide over time how much imprisonment really makes sense to protect the people of Michigan,” Long said. 

The decisions in those cases and others may not sit well with conservatives in a politically divided state, where President Donald Trump won in 2024 and where Republicans hold a majority in the state House. 

A recent 5-2 decision that declared mandatory life in prison without parole for offenders under 21 is an “unconstitutionally cruel punishment” is already making waves. 

County prosecutors have raised concerns and one Republican state lawmaker is threatening to cut funding from state court budgets to offset potential costs for local law enforcement, including any hiring needs, evidence gathering and other preparation for resentencing hearings.

“This is something that courts have basically dictated to the Legislature that they will have to fund,” Rep. Ann Bollin, R-Brighton Township, told Bridge Michigan, calling the decision “rogue and reckless” and voicing concern that more is coming. 

“Elections have consequences.” 

Justice Megan Cavanagh, who replaced outgoing Justice Elizabeth Clement as chief justice, said it’s not the court’s job to make decisions based on their public opinion.

“We are an independent, third branch of government,” she said. “I think it’s a very dangerous thing for anyone in the judicial branch to start making decisions about anything based on whether or not it’s going to be well-recieved.” 

Criminal justice at the forefront 

While Supreme Court races are listed on the nonpartisan portion of the Michigan ballot, candidates and appointees are nominated by either political parties or the governor. 

The makeup of the bench has partisan significance because justices are frequently asked to decide politically charged debates. 

In recent years, Michigan’s highest court has issued rulings that cemented state law on divisive issues including LGBTQ rights, the state's minimum wage, the governor’s emergency powers and the state’s authority to regulate pollution.

Several cases pending before the court could have major implications for the state’s criminal justice system, including a case questioning the constitutionality of mandatory lifetime sex offender registration and monitoring and another considering whether the state’s double jeopardy rules should go further than federal standards in protecting defendants from being tried for the same crime twice. 

The court also recently heard oral arguments in a case questioning whether a safecracker’s convictions on multiple felony counts should stand due to concerns the cell phone search warrant that yielded the incriminating text messages used to convict him violated the Fourth Amendment. 

Related:

• Whitmer appoints Noah Hood to Michigan Supreme Court, expanding Democrat grip
• Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Beth Clement stepping down
• Michigan’s PFAS drinking-water limits hang in balance of Supreme Court case

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s office is challenging a Court of Appeals decision that overturned the defendant’s convictions, arguing the court imposed “an unrealistic and unsupported standard of specificity” on cell phone search warrants that could hinder future law enforcement investigations.  

The Supreme Court could also eventually be the final arbiter in other high-profile pending legal challenges. 

Environmental groups and Native American tribes recently asked the court to consider overturning a key permit for completion of the Line 5 tunnel project. 

And Michigan Senate Democrats are actively challenging House Republicans over nine bills the chamber never sent to Whitmer’s desk, though the high court denied Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks’ request to bypass appellate courts. 

Changes on the court

Clement was appointed to the court in 2017 by former Republican Gov. Rick Snyder and named chief justice in 2022. She was known for her independence on the court and often broke with other Republican-nominated justices on major decisions, occasionally sparking concerns among conservatives. 

After Clement stepped down to take a leadership position with the National Center for State Courts, Cavanagh took her place as the court’s chief justice.

Hood will fill Clement’s seat through the scheduled end of her term in 2026.

Cavanagh, a former appellate attorney who was nominated by the Democratic Party and unseated a Republican nominee in 2018, told Bridge she hopes to continue the work both Clement and former Chief Justice Briget McCormick pursued to make state and local courts more transparent and accessible, as well as improve public understanding of the process. 

“Our only currency is trust in what we do,” she said. “We’re doing what we can to make sure that the system is fair. They may not like the results…but at least they know that the system is fair, that we’ve listened, we’ve considered.” 

As an appellate judge, Hood was involved in several cases relevant to Whitmer, including a 2024 panel ruling to dismiss a rezoning lawsuit seeking to block Ford Motor Company's electric vehicle battery plant near Marshall, a project backed by the governor. 

His family has been deeply entrenched in Detroit politics for decades — both his grandfather and father served on the Detroit City Council, and his mother, Denise Page Hood, is a senior federal judge. 

Noah Hood’s background as a judge and a Detroit native adds an important perspective to the bench, said Long, the Wayne State University professor.

While four justices — Cavanagh, Kyra Bolden, Richard Bernstein and Brian Zahra— live in metro Detroit, the Supreme Court hasn’t had a justice from the city for about a decade. 

Two former justices, Robert Young and Michael Cavanagh (Megan’s father) — grew up in the city and retired in 2016 and 2014, respectively.

“The absence of anyone from the state’s largest city for such a long period of time was, frankly, an embarrassment,” Long said. “It really does matter whether Detroit is represented.” 

Steve Liedel, an attorney at the Dykema law firm who has worked with Democratic governors, told Bridge he doesn’t “see any significant changes in terms of ideology or judicial approach” with Hood’s appointment and Cavanagh taking the helm.

But the gradual solidification of a liberal majority after years of a conservative majority has been “a rather dramatic change” over time, said Richard Friedman, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School.

Justice Brian Zahra, the lone Republican-nominated justice remaining on the court, said he doesn’t foresee much change in the current philosophical divide with a Democratic appointee replacing Clement.

“I’ve been dissenting for a while, I’ll continue to dissent” where appropriate, he told Bridge. 

What it means for 2026 

The current court will be in place for less than two years before Hood and Cavanagh’s seats are up for re-election in 2026. 

If they stand for election, both would benefit from incumbency status, as sitting justices are identified on the ballot. 

In the past several election cycles, Supreme Court races drew significant contributions from outside sources, with Democratic-nominated justices vastly outpacing their Republican-nominated opponents in fundraising and spending. 

Conservative court candidates in other swing states have seen recent influxes in support from wealthy donors, though that hasn’t always guaranteed success. Elon Musk’s influence in the Wisconsin Supreme Court elections failed to sway a majority of voters in backing the Republican-preferred candidate.

Even if two conservative-minded justices were to win in the 2026 cycle, they would still be in the minority on the court — and it would likely take multiple election cycles to change the status quo, said Friedman, the U-M law professor.