Michigan Supreme Court
The Michigan Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal made by the state in a lawsuit filed by former teen inmates alleging the Department of Corrections didn’t do enough to prevent them from being raped.
The state’s high court will hear arguments in July on whether the Legislature followed the rules when it watered down the impact of citizen-drafted legislation to raise Michigan’s minimum wage and require employers to offer paid sick leave. But the court stopped short of saying it will issue an opinion.
A request from the Republican-majority Legislature would sidestep the traditional litigation process, and do an end-run around Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel.
Out with a reliable conservative justice, in with a progressive, and it’s anyone’s guess which way a more closely divided high court in Michigan will swing following years of Republican advantage.
The six lawyers running for two open seats include two nominated by Democrats, two nominated by Republicans, a Libertarian and a man who poses in a straightjacket.
Elizabeth Clement, an incumbent justice who voted in favor of two Republican-opposed causes, secured her party’s nomination Saturday despite some palpable frustration on the convention floor.
The Board of State Canvassers on Friday voted to certify the proposal, following a Michigan Court of Appeals ruling this week ordering that a citizen petition to raise the state’s minimum wage to $12 appear on the November ballot.
A campaign treasurer for Republican-backed justices is on the board of a dark-money group that helped finance the drawing of GOP-friendly legislative districts, federal records show. The justices say they didn’t know.
Michigan’s highest court rules that voters can decide in November whether to approve a measure that would put an independent commission in charge of redrawing legislative lines in the state. Two Republicans join two Dems.
A high-priced battle and a wedge issue for governor. What did the Supreme Court ruling change?
Michigan's high court, in a 4-3 decision, approved a proposed ballot proposal that would change how the state draws legislative lines. See how politicians and experts reacted to the news.
The state’s High Court jousted with attorneys Wednesday over whether a measure that would change the way Michigan draws voting lines should be allowed to go to voters in November.
The high court says it will hear arguments July 18 on whether to allow voters in November to consider a ballot measure that would change how legislative districts are drawn in Michigan.
Schuette, the attorney general and Republican frontrunner for governor, wants Michigan redistricting question off the November ballot. His office argues the proposal creates “a fourth branch of government.”
The Michigan redistricting measure may well be approved Wednesday for the November ballot. But the Michigan Supreme Court could still decide to reject the proposed constitutional amendment later this summer.
The petition to create an independent citizens redistricting commission was approved to appear on the general election ballot Wednesday. The Michigan Supreme Court has yet to decide whether to consider a challenge to the proposal.
The high court is considering rule changes that critics say will make it harder to prosecute inept or crooked judges and delay the public release of misconduct charges.
At issue is whether municipalities have the power to exert local control over what wages they pay to contractors.
Justices Zahra and Viviano try to reconcile being fair, “rule-of-law” judges with their determination to uphold convictions in sex cases. Isn’t it a justice’s duty to ensure a criminal defendant was properly convicted?