Ever demure, Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice, Robert Young, Jr., the highest elected African-American in our state government, stated he was unaware of his inclusion on a short-list for President-Elect Donald Trump's consideration to replace former Justice Antonin Scalia at the SCOTUS.

Justice Young, along with fellow Michigan Supreme Court Justice Joan Larsen, were included in Trump's May and September announcements regarding potential SCOTUS appointments. Both Michigan Justices are members of our High Court's conservative block.

Over the years, this blogger has had several occasions to interact with Justice Young. Most recently, when I argued a 4th Amendment search and seizure case at the Michigan Supreme Court last December, it was Justice Young that did most of the questioning. Back in 2008, I shared a panel with Justice Young on the topic of one of my felony-murder appeals that also made it to the Supreme Court.

As part of the Michigan High Court's conservative block, the justices are among those who take a textualist approach to both the Michigan and the United States Constitutions. This means that they decide cases in accord with the precise meaning of the text of the constitutions and the statutes impacting the case, rather than in accord with their own personally held political beliefs.

Deceased Justice Scalia was the textualist-in-chief; he deplored the judical activism which has been a hallmark of the liberal block on the SCOTUS. One of Trump's avowed first orders of business will be to fill the vacancy on the Court to restore the 5-4 majority that has held sway over most of the past decade.

In our opinion, Justice Young would be a well-qualified appointment; an appointment, however, that seems unlikely amid the clamor in the nation to appoint an ultra-conservative federal jurist to the SCOTUS.

Post #566

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Over the years, we have observed Fox 2 Detroit's "ambush journalism" in the context of the judiciary. Who could forget the piece that ended former Judge Dennis Powers' career as a district court judge in Novi; or their -unsuccessful- attempt to put egg on Judge Rae Lee Chabot's robes.

The idea is to get some choice undercover footage of the judge or justice outside the courtroom, preferably out-of-doors, at home, or at a restaurant. Then, when they least suspect it, stuff a microphone in their face as they are walking toward their car and ask them why they are not in court.

This time, Fox 2 set their sights on the Michigan Supreme Court and Justice Brian Zahra. The ambush occurred outside his parents' home, apparently in the middle of a Tuesday morning; the allegation is that Justice Zahra only goes into his office once a week.

This story raises the issue of whether a Supreme Court justice is required to maintain regular office hours between 9:00 am and 5:00 pm. To address this issue, you have to know something about what a High Court justice does.

Unlike other Michigan courts, the Supreme Court controls its docket by selecting -through a vote of the 7 justices- which cases it will decide. On average, there are about 3000 cases filed with the High Court each year.

The job entails reading an endless supply of briefs written by the best lawyers in Michigan and other states; the job entails staying abreast of the developments in the law; reading lower court opinions; reading statutes; thinking about how those laws apply to a particular set of facts; and, in their assigned cases, writing the opinion that will become binding law on all the lower courts in Michigan.

These days, all appellate briefs -along with the attachments known as an appendix- are required to be uploaded to the court website. As Justice Zahra said in his interview, he has his entire docket and office on a thumb drive.

No one would seriously argue that reading submissions in electronic format requires someone to be sitting at a desk in an office between the hours of 9 and 5. In fact, an argument could be made that a traditional office setting is a place of distraction when it comes to reading, thinking and writing about the law.

Oftentimes, when this blogger has an appellate brief due, I avoid the office for the peace and quiet of my private study in my home. To have a stream of staff walk in and out of my office when trying to complete a brief on deadline is stressful and counterproductive.

My first job out of law school in 1988 was a law clerk position at the Michigan Court of Appeals. In the pre-hearing division, we were assigned an office with a complete set of Michigan reports and statutes; actual books on the shelves; no computers. Our reports to the judges were written-out long-hand on legal pads and then given to secretaries in a typing pool.

Today, an entire law library, along with all the files in my law practice, fit in my laptop computer with instant access. With smart phones, the expectation is that legal professionals are available 24/7.

So who knows whether Justice Zahra works on weekends, late into the night, or early in the morning in order to complete his opinions in the cases assigned to him by the Chief. Does this really matter so long as his output, as one of seven justices on the High Court, is getting done on time?

We are told by the Chief Justice, Robert Young, that his work is timely and exemplary. He gets high marks from his colleagues on the bench; those in the best position to know whether Justice Zahra is doing his job.

Also, a supreme court justice is different than a trial judge that must be present in her courtroom everyday in order to address her docket through hearings, trials and conferences. When trial court judges run late or are absent, the docket starts to back-up, and expensive legal professionals end-up standing around a judicially empty courtroom.

That's a problem for the trial courts. On appeal, not so much.

Post #537

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Justice Maura Corrigan

In the first business-day of the new year, a significant development is unfolding at the highest levels of government for the State of Michigan.  Michigan Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan is expected to resign from the Court in order to serve in newly-minted Governor Rick Snyder's cabinet; most likely as the Director of the Michigan Department of Human Services.

This gives us pause on several levels.  The first consequence of Justice Corrigan's resignation is that it provides the new governor, deemed a political "moderate" along the lines of William Milliken, with his first opportunity to appoint a justice to the high court.

Governor Snyder's first appointment comes at a time of acute dissension at the High Court.  The Court has long been divided along ideological lines with a tightly held conservative majority of 4 justices often opposing the 3 more liberal justices over the past decade.  While some of the players have changed over time, the 4-3 conservative majority on the Court has remained relatively constant for many years.  Justice Corrigan has always led her conservative colleagues, authoring many business-friendly decisions and opinions tending to favor law enforcement in the criminal law.

Some of the acrimony within the Michigan Supreme Court has spilled from their conference chambers into the public in the form of scathing dissents in several decisions, and a recent letter-censure of fomer-Justice Betty Weaver back in November.  Justice Corrigan was among the five Justices signing the censure letter. 

The consensus among Michigan's appellate bar is that Governor Snyder's appointment will end-up as a critical "swing-vote" on the several critical decisions awaiting argument and decision in the current term of the High Court.

One of Justice Corrigan's recent opinions of note was the case of People v Smith; a case involving an African American criminal defendant's challenge to his murder conviction, handed down by an all-white jury selected from a nearly all-white jury pool.  Justice Corrigan's opinion affirming the conviction (and reversing the Court of Appeals decision that had remanded the case back to Kent County for a new trial) was upheld by a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision in Berghuis v Smith.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the author of the SCOTUS decision, characterized Justice Corrigan's handiwork as "cogent".  High praise for a conservative state justice coming from a Clinton-era SCOTUS appointee.

Another highlight in Justice Corrigan's distinguished jurisprudence is her opinion (5-2) in Glass v Goeckel, granting Michiganders the right to walk along the beaches of the coastline of our Great Lakes.  A controversy had arisen from the intermediate appellate court's decision in a case from Up-North holding that citizens could not walk along the beaches of the Great Lakes but rather, could only walk in the water; difficult, if not impossible along many stretches of the lakes.  In overturning the intermediate appellate court, Justice Corrigan's opinion cited both Roman law and portions of the Northwest Ordinance.  She also faced eleventh-hour vigorous dissents from her colleagues Stephen Markman and Robert Young, Jr.

Perhaps Justice Corrigan's most enduring accomplishment, in addition to her life of selfless public service, is her leadership role in bringing about the completion of the Michigan Hall of Justice; a beautiful courthouse which serves as the home of the Michigan Supreme Court and the Lansing office of the Court of Appeals.  Having argued in that Court on several occasions, I've noted that you could land a plane on the counsels' tables.

A second major consequence of Justice Corrigan's job-swap is even more political.  If she assumes the directorship of the Department of Human Services, she will head the agency tasked with providing public assistance and child and family welfare assistance to Michigan's poor.  The DHS has over 100 county offices throughout Michigan.

In the Great Recession era, the DHS has been swamped with families and individuals seeking aid; over one million open cases were logged by the agency last May.  Also, the agency is being sued in federal court over its track record of protecting children.  The imminent appointment of a receiver for the agency apparently was forestalled by Justice Corrigan's appointment.

With Governor Snyder getting elected and taking office on a firm promise to immediately reducing the state's nearly two billion dollar budget deficit, you don't have to be a genius to "do the math" on this one.

So let's sit back and see how this one plays out, as the ripple effect from the election spreads throughout our Great Lake State.

Update:  Since the original version of this post, Justice Corrigan and Governor Snyder have made Corrigan's appointment as Director of DHS official.  Recognizing the difficult task at hand, Governor Snyder has apparently promised Corrigan, and the federal judge, 600 new-hires to replace the more than 1000 experienced workers mothballed via former Governor Granholm's retirement inducements. 

Former Justice Corrigan has a huge and important challenge ahead.  Michigan's poor and its underserved children stand to benefit.

For another take on this subject, check out fellow Oakland Press blogger Tim Skubick's post.


http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Soon-to-be-Former Justice Alton Davis

The Michigan Supreme Court has nearly 20 oral arguments scheduled for December on a wide-variety of important cases.  Whether those arguments will be heard as scheduled is now in question due to circumstances arising from the mid-term election results.

Some background is needed here. 

When I clerked for the Michigan Court of Appeals back in the late 1980s, recently-elected Court of Appeals Judge Betty Weaver was one of the few judges that took the time to stop by and discuss issues with us lowly clerks.  She made no secret of the fact that she was Supreme Court-bound; she was elected to the court in 1995.

After 15-years on the high court, Justice Weaver, a "moderate" Republican, abruptly resigned in August, providing Governor Granholm the opportunity to appoint Weaver's successor, Alton Davis, who could run, and who did run, as an incumbent sitting justice.

Apparently, Weaver resigned in disgust over long-running and well-publicized rifts with her colleagues; particularly Justice Robert Young, Jr.  The Davis appointment allowed the court to shift, at least temporarily, to a Democratic majority.

The recent election provided two spots on the bench for four candidates; two of the candidates, Davis and Justice Young, were incumbents.  Justice Young, considered a conservative justice, linked his campaign in ads and signs with trial judge Mary Beth Kelly.

The tactic worked.  Justice Young retained his seat and will have the opportunity to introduce his "running mate" to the bench in January thereby preserving the narrow 4-3 majority that the judicial conservatives have maintained at the high court for years.

A problem, however, has surfaced since the election.  Should oral argument proceed on the cases scheduled for December when Justice Davis will not be around to participate in the judicial conferences leading to the formation of the common law of our state?

This problem also arose when conservative former justice Cliff Taylor was defeated by Justice Diane Hathaway.  In that instance, the oral arguments were adjourned until the new justice could assume her seat on the bench.

Adjourning the arguments is the best practice.  We should not have a lame-duck justice participating in oral arguments on some very important cases when that justice will not be around during judicial debate and opinion-drafting time.  These are not just any ole cases.  This is our common law.

info@clarkstonlegal.com

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/