We may hear as early as today whether a recall election targeting a state Republican lawmaker will be rescheduled from next month to next year.
State Representative Paul Scott asked the Michigan Supreme Court to order a vote on recalling him from office moved from November 8th to next February.
Next month’s recall has been bouncing around the courts this month as Scott has tried to get the entire recall election cancelled. A judge did issue a temporary injunction stopping the vote only to be overruled by the Michigan Supreme Court. In its decision, the high court ruled that judge's order cancelling the November recall created ‘practical problems’, like what to do with absentee ballots that had already been mailed.
Scott’s attorney is now arguing that the Supreme Court’s own ruling is adding to the confusion.
The recall campaign says Scott only wants to reschedule the recall vote to February, so it can be held on the same ballot as the Republican presidential primary.
A spokesman for state House Republicans insists the February date was only proposed since it’s the next regularly scheduled election.
Former Michigan Attorney General Frank Kelley issued more formal opinions about the constitutionality of various Michigan laws than any attorney general in history.
Of course, that’s partly because he served longer in the office than any attorney general in the history of this or any other state-- thirty-seven years. He was elected ten times, and retired before he had to. Now nearly eighty-seven, he is mostly cheerful, healthy, and enjoying life from his home on Lake Lansing.
A state Supreme Court justice is refusing to remove himself from hearing a challenge to the Michigan’s tough new local emergency manager law. Supreme Court Justice Steve Markman says he has no conflict of interest even though his wife worked on a challenge to the law in federal court.
Kathleen Markman is an assistant state attorney general who did what was described as procedural work to defend the law against the federal court challenge. She has since been removed from the case.
The state Supreme Court will decide whether a man charged with sexually assaulting two children was denied a fair trial because one of the victims testified from behind a screen. The screen shielded her view of the defendant. But he could still see her.
The defendant's attorney, Scott Grabel, says the screen made the jury more likely to believe his client was guilty:
The Michigan Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether a convicted child molester should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because he did not know it would subject him to a lifetime of electronic monitoring.
The state Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether David M. Cole entered a “knowing, intelligent, and understanding” plea.
Cole plead “no contest,” which is essentially a guilty plea, to two counts of having sexual contact with a child younger than 13 when he was in his late 20s. His plea deal included an agreement that he would eligible for release from prison within five years.
But Cole says that he was never told his conviction on second-degree criminal sexual conduct charges requires that he wear an electronic monitoring device for the rest of his life.
Cole was denied permission to withdraw his plea to try and make a new deal.
Prosecutors say their deal was only on prison time, everything else was not part of the negotiation.
The Michigan Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases on whether people who use a family vehicle without permission are covered by no-fault benefits if they are injured in a crash.
In one case, Ryan DeYoung was excluded from his wife’s insurance policy.
In September of 2008, he got drunk, took his wife’s car without permission and crashed the vehicle.
The hospital and recovery center billed the insurance company, which denied the claim.
The insurance company is challenging an appeals court ruling that says DeYoung was covered under “joyriding” clause that typically covers teen-aged drivers who take their parents’ vehicles without permission.
In a separate case, an insurer is challenging a ruling that Craig Smith Junior was covered for injuries he sustained when he crashed his father’s SUV into a tree while driving drunk.
Smith did not have a valid license, and had been told not to drive the vehicle. The insurance company tried to deny coverage because Smith broke the law when he took the wheel of his parent’s car.
DETROIT (AP) - A robbery of illegal immigrants has exposed sharp differences at the Michigan Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Robert Young Jr. broke with the court's conservative bloc and joined three liberal justices in letting a minimum five-year prison sentence stand last week.
Jorge Ivan Torres-David pleaded guilty to armed robbery in 2009. A Wayne County judge added points to the sentencing formula after determining that Torres-David targeted illegal immigrants because he believed they would be reluctant to complain to police.
Supreme Court Justice Marilyn Kelly agreed with the trial judge. She says illegal immigrants are "vulnerable victims" when criminals view them as "easy targets."
Justice Stephen Markman calls the decision "remarkable." He and two other Republicans on the court say illegal immigrants now have greater protections as crime victims than law-abiding residents.
The Michigan Supreme Court will soon issue an opinion on whether the new law taxing pensions is constitutional.
If they say it is, it’s full speed ahead for the governor’s plan. If they decided that taxing pensions is not constitutional, it’ll knock a huge hole in the budget. That means the state will have to get more revenue -- which means raising taxes.
That, or roll back the business tax cuts or slash aid to education and other programs more severely than ever.
And while I don’t pretend to know exactly what would happen, I can tell you this, after talking to the governor last week. He isn’t about to roll back the tax cuts, and he doesn’t want to raise taxes.
The Michigan Supreme Court has agreed to let unions and business groups weigh in before the justices rule on whether the state’s new tax on pension income is legal.
The court will hear arguments in the case next week.
Governor Rick Snyder asked the court to cut short any legal challenges with a preemptive ruling.
The governor wants an opinion from the court before the end of the month.
His budget relies on $343 million dollars from taxing pensions, and he wants to avoid months or years of legal wrangling on the question.
The governor asked the court to decide whether the pension tax breaks a promise by the state to retirees and public employees; and whether income limits in the law amount to a graduated income tax – which is prohibited by the state constitution.
The Supreme Court has agreed to accept briefs from retiree associations and unions that oppose the pension tax, as well as business groups that say the tax is fair.
The Michigan Education Association, the UAW, and the AARP are among the groups that filed briefs opposing the tax. They say the pension tax breaks a promise to retirees and public employees, and it violates the state constitution.
Business groups, including the Michigan Bankers Association, and the Small Business Association of Michigan, are backing Governor Rick Snyder. They say the pension tax is fair because it treats all income equally in the tax code.
If the pension tax is upheld, pension income will be subject to the state income tax starting January 1, 2012.
In the request, Governor Snyder says without bypassing the other courts "this lawsuit may take years to reach finality.":
I recognize the significance of seeking a bypass to this court as provided by MCR 7.305, and only request this court's involvement after careful consideration of the urgency and importance of the issues presented here.
Snyder says the severe financial difficulties facing local governments and school districts require that the questions of constitutionality be resolved quickly.
The justices of the Michigan Supreme Court have made their final rulings of this term. That includes a decision that says Michigan cannot be sued for injuries sustained on state-owned trails for all-terrain vehicles.
A woman sued the Michigan Department of Natural Resources after she flipped her ATV while riding with family and friends on a state-owned trail. The vehicle flipped over half-buried boards sticking out of the ground. The woman hit some trees and injured her back. She argued the state is responsible for maintaining trail safety as it is for maintaining highways. She said the trail fell under the definition of a highway.
But the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that a trail is a trail or a route, and the state is not responsible for safety on the trails as it is for the highways.
The court ruled four-to-three in favor of the state.
The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that a woman who was raped by a jail guard while she was being detained is not entitled to file a civil rights and sexual harassment lawsuit against the county. The court said the local government is not responsible for the behavior of a public worker who acted outside the scope of his employment. The court's Republican majority split with Democratic justices, who say the decision undermines previous rulings that protect victims of discrimination.
A Michigan Supreme Court says homeless sex offenders must report their home address to the state even though they don’t actually have homes. Paroled sex offenders are legally required to provide their home address to the state sex offender registry. But what if they’re homeless?
Randall Lee Dowdy is a convicted rapist. He was paroled in 2002. But he was arrested again a few years later after he gave the address of a Lansing non-profit as his ‘home address’. Dowdy was homeless at the time.
Lower courts ruled Dowdy couldn’t be charged with violating the law since he didn’t have a home address to report.
But the Michigan Supreme Court says homelessness is no excuse. In a 4 to 3 decision, the high court ruled the lower courts had not taken the ‘intent’ of the law into account, adding homelessness doesn’t prevent sex offenders from complying with the law requiring them to report their ‘home’ address to the state.
The dissenting justices describe the majority’s opinion as defying ‘common sense.’
In a blow to unions’ political fundraising, the Republican-led state Supreme Court has ruled automatic deductions from the paychecks of public employees for political donations is illegal. The GOP majority reversed a decision made by the court last December, when Democrats controlled the court.
The Michigan Education Association’s political action committee is fueled by contributions from teachers and school employees who agree to have their donations deducted automatically by the school district from their paychecks.
The Republican justices ruled that’s a violation of Michigan’s campaign finance law because public resources are used to support a political activity. They said it’s not enough for the union to reimburse school districts for the costs of administering the check-off system.
Democrats say the school districts did not spend any money on politics, and complained it appears the only reason the court reconsidered the decision is because the partisan majority changed as a result of last year’s elections.
Beginning this fall, people serving on Michigan juries will be allowed to play a more active role in the pursuit of justice. The Michigan Supreme Court announced today that it is revising the rules for people serving as jurors.
The state Supreme Court has agreed to Governor Rick Snyder’s request to make an early ruling on whether the new income tax on pensions violates the Michigan Constitution.
Governor Snyder made the request to avoid what potentially could be years of litigation.
The governor is trying to preempt an expected lawsuit from state employee unions. They say the tax on pensions will illegally reduce their agreed-to compensation under collective bargaining agreements.
The Michigan Constitution says the state may not “diminish” nor “impair” the financial benefits of pension plans.
The governor wants the question settled before the pension tax takes effect next year. The law extends the state income tax for the first time to pensions of people born after 1945.
The Supreme Court ordered oral arguments to be held in the case in September. The court has a Republican majority.
A work of fiction written by a person charged with a crime can be used against the defendant in court according to a new decision from the Michigan Supreme Court.
The question before the state’s highest court was whether a story a defendant had written depicting graphic scenes of incest between siblings and their father could be used against him as evidence of his intent.
Tomorrow, the Michigan Supreme Court will consider a rule change that could put local governments in a stronger position to challenge unfunded state mandates.
The Headlee Amendment is a state constitutional amendment meant to reduce unfunded state mandates on local governments, like requiring but not necessarily providing extra money for special education programs.
The case involved the discharge of partially contaminated water to a popular trout stream. In December, the court's liberal majority used the case to give more rights to people to challenge state regulators over certain environmental permits.
At issue is whether people have the right to sue the state over pollution concerns when the state issues things like pollution discharge permits.
The case that was argued involved the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), Merit Energy, and the Anglers of the AuSable.
The Michigan Supreme Court is faced with the question of whether a work of fiction can be used against the author if they are charged with a crime.
A Bay County man was convicted of molesting his young granddaughter. Used against him during the trial was a fictionalized “sex manual” he wrote about incestuous sex between siblings and their father.
Chief Justice Robert Young summed up the question before the court during today's hearing.
“We’re now trying to determine the extent to which this incest fantasy is admissible, and why if it is.”
Sylvia Linton is the prosecuting attorney. She says the trial-court judge made a valid point about fictional works:
“Just because Sophocles wrote about incest doesn’t mean he would do that. Well that’s true, but if Sophocles was on trial for having incest with his mother, then I think it becomes extremely relative.”
To which Justice Stephen Markham asked:
“So if Agatha Christie is charged with murder, the fact that she wrote several first-person stories about murder would be relevant as evidence?”
The prosecutor says in some cases, yes, Agatha Christie’s stories could have been used against her.
The defense attorney says allowing works of fiction to be admitted as evidence would open the door for what could be used against a person, and prevent people from receiving fair trials.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case later this year.
The Michigan Supreme Court may soon hear its first case on the state’s medical marijuana law.
Larry King of Owosso has a medical marijuana license from the state. He was charged with a felony by the Shiawassee County prosecutor for growing marijuana in a locked dog kennel that did not have a roof. The Circuit Court dismissed the case, but the Court of Appeals reinstated the felony charges.
“Instead of simply telling Mr. King that he needed to move his plants inside, or put a roof over it, they’re now prosecuting him on felony drug charges for the same offense that he would be charged with if he never had any medical marijuana card at all.”
Korobkin said Michigan voters approved the medical marijuana act to protect patients that were approved to use marijuana for medical reasons.
“We’re representing him because the prosecution of a medical marijuana patient who is complying with the law is a gross injustice and thoroughly undermines the intent of the voters in passing the Medical Marijuana Act."
Politicians don’t like to flip flop. Going back on what they said before can be a big political headache.
The U.S. Supreme Court also takes flip flopping very seriously. The last time they overturned a decision was in 2003.
By comparison, the Michigan Supreme Court has flip-flopped a lot. Somewhere around thirty-eight times in the past decade.
All this flip flopping means that court keeps changing the law. One reason for the flip flops is because the judges on the court keep changing. Between elections and appointments there can be a lot of turnover on the bench. And new judges don’t necessarily agree with those who came before them.
Robert Sedler is a court watcher who says ideology is causing the back and forth on the Court. And he says things got bad about a decade ago. He teaches law at Wayne State University Law School.
"Around 1998 there were a series of appointments by former Governor Engler who were very ideological in their views. The majority took the position that, if they believed cases were wrongly decided, they were going to overrule those cases."
Conservative majorities, like the one appointed by Engler, aren’t the only ones overturning old decisions. In 2010 there was a more moderate court, and they also overturned cases.
Take marajuana, for example. In 2006 the court saw all marijuana use the same, it was illegal. Four years later the new court saw more nuance and interpreted the law in ways that impacts medical marijuana use.
Can a judge determine what happens when you flush your toilet? A case before the Supreme Court may decide that very question.From the AP:
The Michigan Supreme Court said Thursday it will decide if local governments can be ordered to install a sewer system when private septic systems fail and spoil a lake, a case that centers on Lake Huron and a five-mile stretch in the Thumb region.
State regulators want Worth Township to install a sewer system, but an appeals court last year said the township isn't responsible for the problems of private property owners.
Some septic systems are failing in an area between M-25 and Lake Huron in Sanilac County, 80 miles northeast of Detroit. Waste is being discharged into the lake and its tributaries, and the lots are too small to build new systems.
In a brief order, the Supreme Court narrowed the issue: Does state law allow regulators and the courts to demand that a township install a sewer system when a lake is contaminated?
Township attorney Michael Woodworth said he's not surprised that the justices agreed to take the state's appeal.
"The case is one of statewide significance," he said. "There have been (local governments) that did not challenge the authority of the Department of Environmental Quality. What surprised the DEQ in this case is the township stepped back and said, 'Wait a minute.'"
Worth Township seemed ready to build a new sewage system as recently as 2008, but the cost kept them from proceeding.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a murder conviction in the case Michigan v. Bryant. The case involved a Detroit man who identified his shooter as the victim lay dying, and whether or not that evidence could be considered in court. A Wayne County jury convicted Richard Bryant of murder based on the victim's statement. But the Michigan Supreme Court overturned that conviction, saying Bryant was denied his constitutional right to confront his accuser. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the initial conviction.
In the case going before the Michigan Supreme Court, an eight-year-old girl testified that her brother-in-law had repeatedly raped her over a period of years, and exposed her and her brother to pornography.
The jury did not believe the man’s defense that the girl made up the charges to break up his marriage.
The defendant says he was deprived of his right to confront the primary witness against him because she testified from behind a one-way screen.
The screen shielded her view of the defendant, although he could see her.
A therapist said that was the only way she could testify without risking serious emotional damage.
The defendant says the shield prejudiced the jury against him, and that the Constitution requires witnesses to look defendants in the eye when testifying against them.
The Michigan Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday on the dispute around Jean Klock Park in Benton Harbor.
In 1917, some land along Lake Michigan was given to the city of Benton Harbor. The "Friends of Jean Klock Park" describe the gift this way:
In 1917, John and Carrie Klock deeded a half mile of lake Michigan frontage to the City of Benton Harbor Michigan in memory of their deceased daughter Jean. Their gift consisted of 90 acres of globally rare natural resources that included Great Lakes Dunes, a Great Lakes Marsh and interdunal wetlands. The donated land was named Jean Klock Park and was dedicated "FOR THE CHILDREN" - "in perpetuity" - "FOREVER."
Today, the city of Benton Harbor has leased part of the park to the Harbor Shores Community Redevelop Corporation. The Redevelop Corporation used the land, including sand dunes along the Lake Michigan shoreline for 3 holes of an 18 hole golf course.
Residents didn't like it and they filed a lawsuit. The case made it to the Michigan Supreme Court yesterday.
On May 6, 2007, firefighters were called to the residence of Kathleen Tunner at 3206 Coolidge, Royal Oak, Michigan. Ms. Tunner testified that she suspected that water was running down the wall of her basement in her unit over her electrical box. Ms. Tunner contacted 911 and the fire department arrived...even though the unit in which called for assistance was Ms. Tunner's unit, Lieutenant Schunck never entered or inspected Ms. Tunner's unit...[Schunck] testified that they entered Defendant's unit, absent any signs of leaking water or hearing water running from outside Defendant's unit...Upon entering Defendants unit, the firefighters observed suspected marijuana plants...and subsequently contacted the police."
This Wednesday, the Michigan Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that may determine if police officers have an expectation of privacy when they are doing their jobs.
It all started with a video.
Detroit city police and members of former Mayor Dennis Archer’s staff wanted to prevent a sexually explicit video from being played at a Dr. Dre concert in July 2000.
A camera crew for the rapper videotaped police officers saying they would pull the plug on the concert.
Former police officer, and current Detroit City Council president pro-tem Gary Brown, is seen on the video saying "we're going to shut this show down."
Eventually, Dr Dre decided not to show the video police were concerned about.
But the video of the police officers making their threats was put onto a concert DVD.
Thanks to YouTube user "snoopfroggydogg," you can see the "Detroit Controversy" videos here (WARNING: they contain images and words not suitable for younger viewers):
Detroit city officials sued, claiming the DVD makers violated Michigan’s anti-eavesdropping law by putting the video on the DVD without their permission.
The city officials and police officers claim their privacy was invaded by being videotaped and the video being shown publicly.
Attorney Herschel Fink represents the DVD’s producers. He says police officers have no 'right to privacy when they’re doing their job:
"I think the very essence of law enforcement is transparency...and I think this case has implications for mainstream news gathering and not just private citizens who are videotaping police berating them which was the case here."
Lower courts have tended to side with the DVD producers.
Michigan Radio has learned that Judge Zahra's appointment will take effect on Friday, January 14th at noon. In a release sent out this morning, Governor Snyder said Zahra's, "legal reasoning abilities and depth of understanding of Michigan law are virtually unmatched." Snyder also noted:
Judge Zahra’s sixteen years of judicial experience and his razor sharp intelligence will make him an outstanding addition to the court. His integrity and consistent legal philosophy that judges are to interpret laws, not make them, gives me confidence that he will respect our system of checks and balances while upholding the rule of law.”
Governor Rick Snyder has named Appeals Court Judge Brian Zahra to the Michigan Supreme Court, Michigan Public Radio's Rick Pluta reports. Zahra was appointed to the appeals court in 1999 by former Republican Governor John Engler. He was then elected to the court in 2000 and 2006.