Updates About Supreme Court Rulings

Recently, the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) refused to hear Kim Davis v. David Ermold, where Davis had hoped the Court would overturn a lower court’s decision awarding damages to a same sex couple that Davis refused to issue a marriage license to while working as a court clerk. Davis also requested that the Court overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that established marriage equality for same-sex couples.

Among those celebrating the decision was Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, who is the state’s first openly LGBTQ+ individual elected to a statewide office. In a statement released shortly after the Court announced they would not be taking on the case, Nessel expressed relief but gave a warning: this is only a battle won, and to secure lasting victory against other efforts to overturn Obergefell, Michigan must change the state Constitution to protect marriage equality.

The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that automatically sentencing 19- and 20-year-olds to life without parole is unconstitutional under the state’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. In a 5-2 decision, the court said these young adults must instead receive individualized sentencing, allowing judges to weigh circumstances before issuing such severe penalties.

The decision applies retroactively, meaning it could impact past cases that are still eligible for court review. While life without parole remains a sentencing option for serious crimes like first-degree murder, courts must now consider factors such as age and personal history before deciding. Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement and Justice Brian Zahra dissented from the majority opinion.

The Michigan Supreme Court has declined to immediately take up a lawsuit filed by the state Senate against the House of Representatives, confirming the case will go through the normal legal process by having the Court of Appeals review it first. The ongoing dispute centers on the House’s refusal to formally present nine bills passed by the Senate during the last session, a procedural step required to send legislation to the governor.

While Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks had asked both the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court to weigh in on the matter immediately, the court said it was not persuaded to skip the usual legal process. However, it did order the Court of Appeals to expedite its review so the matter can move forward more quickly.

Related Articles: BRINKS SEEKS SUPREME COURT RULING AND MAKES SENATE RULE CHANGE IN ONGOING FIGHT OVER HOUSE BILLS • MICHIGAN HOUSE DECLINES TO SEND NINE BILLS TO GOVERNOR • SENATE DEMOCRATS FILE LAWSUIT AGAINST SPEAKER HALL