Updates About Supreme Court Rulings

The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to federal regulations surrounding the abortion medication mifepristone recently, which means continued access, most notably includes by mail to patients, to the medication here in Michigan. The decision, which rejected claims of health risks associated with the medication, disappointed challenge-advocates who had sought tighter restrictions.

Governor Gretchen Whitmer praised the ruling, emphasizing its importance in protecting reproductive rights as she stated, “Mifepristone will remain safe, legal, and available to Michiganders.“

This marks the first time the Supreme Court has addressed abortion since its 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Michigan Legislators are bracing for potential upheaval should the state’s minimum wage law be invalidated by the Michigan Supreme Court. If the court strikes down the existing law, which allows tips to count towards minimum wage, Michigan could see its minimum wage potentially rise to over $13 per hour. Advocates for the wage increase, such as One Fair Wage, believe an increased wage is essential to filling low-wage job vacancies. However, critics in the hospitality industry worry that the prices of food and beverages will rise and layoffs may occur due to restaurant labor costs increasing by 250%. The fate of Michigan’s paid sick leave law also hangs in the balance.

Whitmer and State Lawmakers are considering their options, weighing the need to uphold the spirit of voter initiatives while ensuring the viability of small businesses. Worker advocates are pushing for further increases in the minimum wage to $15 by 2027, while industry representatives emphasize the importance of retaining the tip credit system. The court’s decision, expected by the end of July, could have far-reaching implications for Michigan’s economy and political landscape.

In a recent ruling, the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld setting the state’s personal income tax rate to 4.25%, dismissing appeals for a return to the 4.05% rate that we saw in 2023. The three-judge panel’s unanimous decision was grounded on an absence of legislative language declaring that the rate reduction would be permanent. The court also noted that including such verbiage would introduce the potential for compounding reductions that could jeopardize the existence of an income tax altogether.

The case, initiated by a coalition including two lawmakers and various taxpayers, contested Attorney General Dana Nessel’s opinion that the reduced rate only applied to 2023. The Mackinac Center for Public Policy, which led the suit, plans to appeal based on the implication that the bill’s language necessitates a permanent tax cut. Stay tuned for further developments as the appeal progresses.