10 landmark cases that show how the Michigan Supreme Court shapes your rights 

Michigan has laws protecting civil rights and reproductive freedoms—but the state Supreme Court still holds a lot of sway over whether those rights are actually protected.

MICHIGAN—The race for two open seats on the Michigan Supreme Court is emerging as one of the most consequential decisions that voters will be asked to make this year—namely because the judges who end up serving on the court may play a key role in determining whether basic civil rights and liberties, including reproductive freedoms, should be protected in Michigan.

This year, there are four candidates running for two open seats on the Court—two candidates backed by the state’s Democratic Party and two candidates backed by the Republican Party.

Democratic-backed justices currently hold a 4-3 majority on the Court. Republican victories could flip control of the court, while two Democratic wins would yield a 5-2 majority. 

And as the highest legal authority in Michigan, those elected to the Court will be tasked with interpreting the state’s laws and constitution and making the final call on issues dealing with everything from abortion and the minimum wage to LGBTQ rights and election rules.

“The Michigan Supreme Court has a profound impact on the rights of everyone throughout the state and shapes the laws that affect the day to day of our lives,” ACLU of Michigan Director Loren Khogali said in a statement earlier this summer. “It has never been more important to elect a Michigan Supreme Court that will protect and expand our hard-won rights.” 

Democrats and Republicans are likely to rule differently on different subjects, with conservative judges often taking a narrower, more restrictive view of constitutional rights and legal freedoms. 

Here’s an overview of 10 noteworthy cases where the Democratic majority on the Michigan Supreme Court has opted to protect—rather than take away—critical rights for Michiganders:

1. Reproductive Freedom for All v. Board of State Canvassers (2022)

The Issue: This case centered around whether Proposal 3 could be placed on the ballot in the November 2022 election. The voter-led initiative sought to add clear language protecting reproductive rights into the state Constitution. But despite garnering more than enough valid signatures to go to a vote, it was blocked by Republicans on the Board of State Canvassers.

The Ruling: In a 5-2 decision, the state Supreme Court ruled in favor of placing the amendment on the ballot—which ultimately led to voters approving constitutional protections for abortion.

The Dissent: In a dissenting opinion, the Court’s Republican-backed judges argued that the petition was invalid because of spacing errors that made the document difficult to read. 

Translation: A conservative majority may have blocked the reproductive rights amendment from reaching the ballot in 2022, which could’ve delayed or prevented the state’s constitutional protections for abortion rights and left the future of abortion access in Michigan up in the air.

2. Promote the Vote v. Board of State Canvassers (2022)

The Issue: This case centered around another ballot initiative that was initially blocked by the Board of State Canvassers: Proposal 2 of 2022, which sought to lock certain voting rights into the state Constitution—all of them centered on reducing barriers to the ballot and making it easier for Michiganders to make their voices heard both before and on Election Day.

The Ruling: In another 5-2 decision, the state Supreme Court ruled to place the amendment on the ballot—which ultimately led to the constitutional protection of more voting rights in Michigan. 

The Dissent: In a dissenting opinion, the Court’s Republican-backed judges argued that the petition should be blocked over various technicalities in the way the ballot initiative was filed.

Translation: A conservative majority may have blocked the voting rights amendment from reaching the ballot in 2022, which would’ve potentially delayed or prevented constitutional protections for voting rights in the state of Michigan.

3. Mothering Justice v. Attorney General (2024)

The Issue: This case was focused on whether Republican state lawmakers violated the state Constitution in 2018 when they circumvented the ability for people to vote on a ballot measure that sought to raise the state’s minimum wage and expand paid sick time for workers. 

Instead of allowing the measure to go up to a vote, state lawmakers, at the time, opted to pass the measures into law for themselves and then water down the proposed benefits for workers.

The Ruling: In a 4-3 decision, the state Supreme Court ruled against those “adopt and amend” tactics that were used by Republican lawmakers to stagnate the minimum wage—and ordered the state to set a new schedule that will lead to pay raises for tens of thousands of workers, and require most of the state’s employers to offer some form of paid time off for their staff.

The ruling also means that state lawmakers—regardless of their party affiliation—can no longer take voter-led ballot measures that have qualified for the ballot, pass them into law for themselves, and then immediately rewrite the core meaning of the intended changes.

“Protecting the constitutional right of the people to lead and vote on ballot measures is core to our democracy,” Dan Korobkin, legal director at the ACLU of Michigan, said after the ruling. 

The Dissent: The Republican-nominated justices on the Court disagreed with the decision, arguing that there was “no support in the Michigan Constitution, or in the history, tradition or case law of this state or this country” for the Court to get involved with the issue.

Translation: A more conservative Court may have sided with business interests over workers, weakening labor protections by keeping wages flat and blocking the state’s paid sick leave laws.

4. Rouch World v. Michigan Department of Civil Rights (2022)

The Issue: This case centered around a company that refused to do business with a same-sex couple and a transgender woman, and it revolved around whether state civil rights laws specifically prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. 

The Ruling: In a 5-2 opinion, the state Supreme Court found the state’s non-discrimination laws clearly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex—and that they should be interpreted to include sexual orientation. The decision has been celebrated as a victory for the LGBTQ community.

And as a result of that decision, LGBTQ people in Michigan have some of the country’s most comprehensive protections against discrimination in employment, housing, education, public accommodations, and public services, according to a statement from the ACLU of Michigan. 

The Dissent: In a dissenting opinion, Republican-backed judges referred to “sex” as a binary, as either “biological male or biological female,” and argued that it was, instead, the state Legislature’s duty to say what the law is rather than leave it to the courts to interpret it.

Translation: In the absence of clear statutory language, conservative judges on the Michigan Supreme Court would be more likely to arrive at a narrower definition of state law that concludes that sexual orientation is not a protected class under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. 

5. Pueblo v. Haas (2023)

The Issue: This case revolved around whether LGTBQ parents who were unconstitutionally denied the right to get married before same-sex marriage was legalized could seek custody (as well as parenting time) of their children. 

The Ruling: The state Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision, provided parental rights for LGBTQ people, regardless of marital status, also ensuring that if and when a couple’s relationships break down, they’ll each still be able to maintain a parental role with children they helped raise.

The ruling also established that when a same-sex couple uses assisted reproduction, like IVF,  the non-birth parent should also be given legal parental rights under Michigan’s assisted reproduction statute. Finally, the Court said that the state’s family law statutes must be interpreted in a gender-neutral way, protecting both married and unmarried LGBTQ+ parents. 

“The children of same-sex partners bear no lesser rights to the enjoyment and support of two parents than children born to married opposite-sex parents,” according to the majority opinion.

The Dissent: Republican-backed judges, who tend to rule against LGBTQ rights, disagreed with the decision to extend the equitable-parent doctrine in Michigan and, in their dissent, expressed concern for so-called “far-reaching ramifications outside the child custody context.” 

Translation: This ruling may have panned out differently under a more conservative slate of judges. That includes the possibility of maintaining the status quo in Michigan—which, until this ruling, had denied legal parental rights to unmarried partners in same-sex relationships.

6. Andary v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co. (2023)

The Issue: This case revolved around whether changes in Michigan’s 2019 no-fault insurance, which imposed strict new limits on care for car crash survivors, could be applied to people who were injured before the new law took effect but still in need of medical care on an ongoing basis.

The Ruling: The state Supreme Court sided with the ACLU of Michigan and ruled that survivors were entitled to the same level of healthcare benefits—and that the legislation did not retroactively strip insurance coverage away from those involved in crashes before 2019. 

The Dissent: Republican judges sided with insurance companies, which reportedly warned that the decision would only open the door to future rate increases. In a dissent, they also argued the decision violated the constitutional separation of powers by ignoring a “reasonable reading” and making “loose use of vague and open-ended concepts such as vested rights.”

Translation: A more narrow interpretation from conservative judges could’ve effectively ended medical care for thousands of Michiganders who were seriously injured in car crashes before 2019—namely by denying them health care coverage through their auto insurance policies.

“The Michigan Supreme Court made the correct legal decision, as well as a humane one,” Korobkin said in a statement. “Because of this ruling, it is our hope that thousands of Michiganders seriously injured in auto accidents, and receiving crucial care and resources through insurance coverage, won’t have their lives dangerously upended.”

7. The Gym 24/7 Fitness v. State of Michigan (2024)

The Issue: This case—and others like it—centered around whether businesses that were temporarily forced to close during the pandemic under Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s executive orders were entitled to financial relief from the state, namely because federal and state law protects citizens and businesses from having private property taken without just compensation. 

The Ruling: The state Supreme Court ultimately sided with a prior decision from the Michigan Court of Appeals, which found that the gym—and other businesses—were not actually deprived of all “economically beneficial” uses of their property as a result of Whitmer’s executive orders.

The Dissent: Republican-backed judges, who opposed the state’s policy efforts to slow the spread of COVID-19, wanted to take up the case. In his dissent, Justice David Viviano said the Court was missing out on an opportunity to define portions of the law that have gone untested.

Translation: A Republican-backed majority on the Court may have been more willing to challenge executive orders from a Democratic governor. A different outcome may have also created a chilling effect on public health officials’ duty to take precautions during a pandemic.

8. People v. Lyman (2024)

The Issue: Hundreds of Michiganders were placed on the state’s sex-offender registry even though their criminal conviction had nothing to do with sex—including a Wayne County man who had been convicted of holding his wife and two children at gunpoint for several hours.

The Ruling: The state Supreme Court sided with the ACLU of Michigan and found that people convicted of crimes that contain no sexual element (and pose no risk of committing sexual crimes) should not be forced to be listed on the state’s sex offender registry—or else it would be considered “cruel or unusual punishment” and that’s barred by the state Constitution.

The Dissent: Republican judges disagreed with the ruling, noting that dozens of other states have broader definitions for what’s considered a sexual offense, and that it was better for public safety to expand the sex offender registry rather than limit offenders who can be listed there.

Translation: The state’s sex-offender registry now features a more accurate collection of people who may pose a risk of committing sexual crimes in the future and the state is also no longer inflicting “cruel and unusual” punishment on people that doesn’t reflect their actual crimes. 

9. LaBrant v. Michigan Secretary of State 

The Issue: Partisan activists tried to have ex-President Donald Trump’s name removed from the 2024 primary ballot based on Trump’s involvement in the riots at the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 and the US Constitution’s so-called “insurrectionist ban” included under the 14th Amendment, which bans those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding elected office. 

The Ruling: A lower state court rejected attempts to have Trump’s name removed from the ballot and the Michigan Supreme Court decided not to take up the case on an appeal. In an order, the justices noted they were not persuaded the case warranted any further review.

The Dissent: None of the judges thought Trump’s name should be removed from the primary ballot, though Democratic-backed Justice Elizabeth Welch, in a dissent, argued that the Court should’ve still ruled on the substance of the 14th Amendment challenge against Trump.

Translation: The ruling shows that Democratic-backed judges are capable of setting aside their partisan differences in favor of giving voters the ability to decide on candidates for themselves. It’s unclear how Republican judges would’ve decided a case involving a Democratic candidate.

10. People v. Prude

The Issue: This case centered around whether Michigan cops have the authority to stop and detain a person when they have no reasonable suspicion that person has committed a crime.

The Ruling: In a 5-2 decision, the Court found that because two Michigan police officers had no reasonable suspicion that a Kalamazoo man had violated the law, they also had no authority to detain him, chase him down after he fled, and then charge him with fleeing and resisting arrest. 

The Dissent: Two Republican-backed judges dissented, arguing that the officers could’ve actually suspected the man of trespassing, which is a crime, and that his arrest and subsequent conviction was justified based on the totality of the circumstances surrounding the encounter.

Translation: Conservative judges, as displayed in this case, are more likely to side with police officers and adopt a narrower interpretation of laws that are designed to protect civil rights, including Fourth Amendment rights that protect against unlawful searches and seizures. 

Click here to learn more about the candidates for the Michigan Supreme Court.

READ MORE: ‘Under-the-radar’ race for Michigan Supreme Court has huge stakes

For the latest Michigan news, follow The ‘Gander on Twitter.

Follow Political Correspondent Kyle Kaminski here.