What’s Left In MI Supreme Court’s Last Month Of Session?

In its last month of its current session, the Michigan Supreme Court has 28 outstanding opinions — eight of which are calendar cases, which means an opinion is expected no later than July 31.

The court heard 55 cases, including cases related to a defunct criminal statute and double jeopardy, but the three most watched cases still outstanding involve House Speaker Matt HALL (R-Richland Township)'s refusal to forward nine bills passed during lame duck to the Governor's desk as well as a case involving the Michigan Consumer Protection Act and the ongoing saga of Canadian-based Enbridge Energy's Line application.

Sen. Winnie Brinks (D-Grand Rapids)'s lawsuit against Hall was unprecedented in Michigan, and it came after a lengthy marathon session in the 2024 lame duck when the Senate passed the nine bills, including those related to allowing corrections officers to join the state retirement system and lifting the caps on how much money public employers can spend on workers' healthcare benefits.

A Court of Claims judge held the bills should be forwarded to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, but the judge did not order Hall to do so. As the appeals process moved forward, the House passed HR 41banning the chamber from forwarding any past bills to the Governor.

In May, an attorney for the House told the justices the judiciary lacks authority to compel legislative action, while the Senate's attorney countered that Hall's refusal to present the bills violates the Constitution.

The case, Senate v. House, was a "mini-oral argument on the application," or MOAA, which allows the court to hear brief arguments to decide whether to fully accept the case for appeal. Opinions in MOAA cases are not guaranteed to come in the current court session.

A calendar case means the court has officially granted an application for leave to appeal, and it's expected that decisions on calendar cases will come by the end of the annual term on July 31.

Also of interest this session is Enbridge Energy's Line 5 application (Case Nos. 168335 and 168346).

The Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) held a hearing and eventually approved Enbridge’s proposed four-mile oil pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac, with conditions related to environmental impacts.

Several intervenors, including tribal nations and environmental groups, appealed the MPSC's final order and the Court of Appeals affirmed in a published opinion. The Michigan Supreme Court heard oral arguments in March.

Another case arguably being closely watched is Attorney General Dana Nessel's fight to investigate drug manufacturer Eli Lilly & Company over insulin pricing.

The challenge could decide whether Michigan's consumer protection law can be used to hold corporations accountable for alleged deceptive practices.

The criminal case of Edwin Lamar Langston is also of interest as it could provide relief to around 100 aging Michigan prisoners, most of them Black.

After hearing oral arguments in 2025 in Langston's appeal, the Supreme Court asked for additional information addressing whether a life-without-parole sentence for prisoners sentenced prior to the court's 1980 People v. Aaron is cruel.

In the Aaron case, the unanimous court abolished "felony murder," which meant the felon was guilty of murder — regardless of motive or role in causing the death.

Langston was convicted of the now defunct "felony murder" in 1976 for aiding and abetting an armed robbery that resulted in the death of Arretta Lou Ingraham, wife of then-South Haven councilman Wilbur Ingraham, during the robbery of the couple's grocery store

In addition to the Langston, Eli Lilly and Enbridge cases, the court's outstanding calendar cases also include:

- People v. Eads, whether a 50-year sentence for a juvenile offender is a life sentence.

- People v. Jade, related to whether police entrapped the defendant with a bait-and-switch sex sting.

- People v. Jennings, whether prosecutorial misconduct bars a retrial under double jeopardy.

- People v. Black, whether the Fifth Amendment allowed the defendant to refuse a psychological exam by the prosecution's expert.