Updates About Supreme Court Rulings

Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement has announced she will step down from the bench by April 30, 2025. Appointed by former Governor Rick Snyder, Clement has been recognized for her commitment to judicial independence and fairness. During her tenure, she worked to improve access to justice and modernize Michigan’s court system. Her departure gives Governor Gretchen Whitmer the opportunity to appoint a replacement, furthering the current 5-2 Democratic-nominated majority on the court.

Following her resignation, Clement will take on a new role as president of the National Center for State Courts, a nonprofit dedicated to improving judicial systems. Her successor will serve the remainder of her term and will need to run for reelection in 2026.

The Michigan Supreme Court issued an order clarifying the implementation of the state’s minimum wage increase plan, confirming that the Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity and the Department of Treasury’s calculations were accurate. The court ruled that inflation adjustments should be calculated starting from January 1, 2019, through July 31, 2024, resulting in a gradual increase in the minimum wage to $12.48 in 2025 and up to $14.97 by 2028.

The court also addressed a missed phase-in percentage for tipped wages, clarifying that tipped workers’ wages would reach 100% of the regular minimum wage by 2030, correcting their initial projection of 2029. Justice Elizabeth Welch provided a concurring opinion, while Justices Brian Zahra and David Viviano dissented. Treasury must submit the finalized wage figures by November 1, 2024.

The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine marks a significant shift in federal agency authority, impacting how regulations are interpreted and enforced across various sectors, including health care, environmental protection, and more. For decades, under Chevron, courts deferred to agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes, but now, judges will hold greater discretion in evaluating these interpretations themselves. The 6-3 ruling, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, emphasized that agencies do not possess unique expertise in resolving statutory gray areas and that courts must now independently scrutinize agency interpretations instead of deferring to them automatically.

The ruling has polarized opinions, with conservatives applauding it as a check on executive overreach and liberals warning of potential chaos and setbacks in regulatory protections. This decision is expected to lead to increased legal challenges to federal regulations and could reshape how future administrations navigate policy implementation amid judicial scrutiny. It also raises questions about the future of major policy initiatives as administrations navigate a landscape where judicial decisions play an increased role in shaping regulatory outcomes.