The Michigan Department of Attorney General utilizes the services of Special Assistant Attorneys General from time to time when the unique circumstances of a particular case create the need for specialized services not currently available within the department.
The Michigan Attorney General has determined that a full and complete investigation of what happened within the Catholic Church is required. This investigation is and will continue to be independent, thorough, transparent, and prompt. My department and this investigation will find out who knew what, and when.
The Conviction Integrity Unit (the “CIU”) investigates claims of innocence to determine whether there is clear and convincing new evidence that the convicted defendant was not the person who committed the offense.
In Michigan, a victim is an individual who suffers direct or threatened physical, financial, or emotional harm as a result of the commission of a crime.
The laws regarding expungement of criminal offenses in Michigan changed in major ways in April of 2021. This page is designed to help applicants navigate their way through the new laws, help them determine if they are eligible to have convictions expunged, to answer frequently asked questions about the new laws, and to provide links for resources and assistance.
To investigate and prosecute hate crimes by following up on every credible tip and offer departmental resources to assist local and federal law enforcement partners in this effort.
The Michigan Attorney General is leading the fight against this horrific crime by prosecuting the state's first-ever criminal cases under state law banning human trafficking in Michigan. Victims of human trafficking are in bondage through force, fraud or coercion, for the purpose of sex or labor exploitation.
Knowing how to guard your personal information is your first line of defense against identity theft.
Michigan Attorney General's robocall initiative is leading several efforts to protect Michigan residents from the billion plus robocalls made to them every year.
Michigan's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), MCL 15.231 et seq, provides that requesters can receive copies or make inspections of most public records of public bodies upon written request.
The Open Meetings Act (OMA) took effect January 1, 1977. In enacting the OMA, the Legislature promoted a new era in governmental accountability and fostered openness in government to enhance responsible decision making.1 Nothing in the OMA prohibits a public body from adopting an ordinance, resolution, rule, or charter provision that requires a greater degree of openness relative to public body meetings than the standards provided for in the OMA. 2
Search is currently unavailable. Please try again later.
The web Browser you are currently using is unsupported, and some features of this site may not work as intended. Please update to a modern browser such as Chrome, Firefox or Edge to experience all features Michigan.gov has to offer.
The rupture of another Enbridge pipeline near Marshall Michigan in 2010, which resulted in the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history focused new scrutiny on Line 5, especially on the four-mile segment crossing the Straits.
Line 5’s dual pipelines are literally in the Great Lakes, and lie exposed in a busy shipping channel, where especially strong and varying currents could carry an oil spill far along the shores of Lakes Michigan and Huron.
Independent analyses of alternatives to and the risks of the Straits Pipelines show that the pipelines are vulnerable to damage by anchor strikes and inherent operational risks and that because of the ecological sensitivity of the location a spill could cause grave environmental and economic harm.
In June 2019, after Enbridge refused to enter an agreement with Governor Whitmer to decommission Line 5, AG Nessel filed suit against Enbridge in Ingham County Circuit Court, asking the court to declare that Enbridge’s continued operation of the Straits pipelines violates the public trust, is a common law public nuisance, and violates the Michigan Environmental Protection Act.
The suit seeks an injunction requiring Enbridge to permanently shutdown Line 5 after a reasonable notice period. Underscoring the importance of the legal issues presented in this case, the states of California, Minnesota and Wisconsin took the unusual step of filing an amicus curiae [friend of the court] brief supporting the ability of a state to protect its waters and submerged lands under the public trust doctrine.
The parties to the case have filed and argued cross-motions for summary disposition that are awaiting decision by the court.
In June 2020, after Enbridge revealed that both of the Straits pipelines had been struck by cables or other objects, resulting in serious damage to a pipeline support structure, AG Nessel filed motions for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction (PI) requiring Enbridge to temporarily shutdown the pipelines and to disclose to the State all information about the causes of the impacts, the effects on the pipelines, and measures to prevent such impacts. The court granted both the TRO and PI.
Subsequent reports showed that while the specific areas of the pipelines that were impacted did not suffer damage to pipeline integrity, the most likely source of the impacts were vessels operated by Enbridge contractors.
In November 2020, after completing a detailed review by the Department Natural Resources of Enbridge’s compliance with the 1953 Easement that allowed Enbridge to construct the pipelines, Governor Whitmer and DNR Director Eichinger issued a Notice revoking the Easement based on the public trust doctrine (using the essentially same grounds as AG Nessel’s 2019 lawsuit) and terminating the Easement based on Enbridge’s repeated violations of its requirements.
The Notice requires Enbridge to cease operation of the pipelines within 180 days (May 2021). At the same time, AG filed a second lawsuit on behalf of the Governor and the DNR asking the Ingham County Circuit Court to uphold and enforce the Notice.