The Michigan Constitution Podcast

This year, like it does every 16-years, the people of Michigan are going to be asked if they want to create a new Michigan Constitution. What does that mean? How would it work? Listen now to find out more!

The MI Court of Appeals throws out the conviction of the person trying to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan.

This week we got one case opinion regarding Giorgio Webster v. Dr. Jeffrey Osguthorpe and Summit Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. It’s not the underlying medical malpractice case that gets any attention, it’s the Michigan Court Rule which got amended during the 20-months of litigation that the Michigan Supremes addressed.

This week the Michigan Supreme Court handed down one Order in the case of the People of the State of Michigan vs. Allen Michael Sherrill. Five out of six justices denied Sherrill’s appeal from the decision made by the Michigan Court of Appeals (COA). But one justice, Justice Bolden, would have been willing to accept the appeal because she believes the Michigan COA screwed-up one of the four elements reviewed in this case. She believes that the burden shifts from the Defendant to the Prosecutor on element number three. Do you agree with three?

This week the Michigan Supreme Court gave us one case to review. It was The People of Michigan v. Clinton, a criminal case was arose from a contract dispute. The holding here is that Larceny By Conversion was not in play when a housing contractor gave a down payment to a heating & cooling contractor. When a private party contractual dispute arises, a Prosecutor needs to stay in their own lane and deal with actual, legitimate criminal offenses.

This week the Michigan Supreme Court gave us two cases to review.

Stefanski vs. the Saginaw County 911 deals with the Michigan Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), and whether or not the old school concept of Common Law could be incorporated into the MI WPA for the purposes of suing an employer. Stefanski said he was fired, not because it had too many unauthorized “no show” for work days, but because he was going to “blow the whistle” on his employers for gross negligence. But gross negligence isn’t a listed reason to be protected by the WPA. But it would be if the old common law practice were incorporated into this law.

In re: D. V. Lange addresses two statutory provisions regarding when child custody and the Probate courts can take jurisdiction over a minor child due to a parent’s neglect. Specifically, the issue was whether or not the mother was or was NOT able to care for her child. If should could care for the child, but chose not to, the probate court could take jurisdiction and enter the child into child protective service. But in a head-scratching line of reasoning, the Michigan Supreme Court deemed the mother was unable to care for her child, and so the probate court couldn’t take the minor child into custody.

This time, our one-off podcast will highlight three different administrative law cases. Don’t let the topic bore you, this is actually far more relevant to your day-to-day life than most cases will. That’s because almost every license issued to a professional in the State of Michigan is authorized and issued by your state government. For that reason, we will discuss:

As you’ll recall, the Michigan Senate sued the Michigan House of Representatives over nine legislative bills which passed both chambers of the Legislature in December, 2024. However, when the 102nd Legislature failed to present the bills to the Governor for her signature or veto, the current 103rd Legislature questioned whether it had the legal authority to do what the 102nd failed to do. We have a decision in the case. The Senate wins the bigger issue, the House got a few wins, too. Which Chamber do you believe was the bigger winner in the lawsuit? Listen to find out!

A lawsuit has been filed by the Michigan Senate against the Michigan House of Representatives. The lawsuit alleges that the House has failed to fulfill its constitutional duties, pursuant to Article 4, Section 33, by not submitting to the Governor nine (9) bills, as passed by the Michigan Legislature in 2024. However, the Presentment Clause of the Michigan Constitution may not say what the Michigan Senate is implying. The House contends it has done nothing wrong by taking extra time to review the 9 bills, to the contrary, it is satisfying the requirements the Constitution places upon it by ensuring any actions taken are lawful.

I have every reason to believe this lawsuit could make its way before the Michigan Supreme Court, hence the reason why I’m reporting on this lawsuit while still in the preliminary the trial stage. Give it a listen to see which side of the lawsuit you fall on. Both sides make excellent legal arguments for their respective side.