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 Task Force launched in 2019 and consists of more than 55 different organizations in the public, private and nonprofit sectors - all working together to combat elder abuse.
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.
Attorney General Dana Nessel is increasingly concerned about any disruption in social security for Michiganders. If you have experienced any unusual disruption in your social security services or you have been prevented from accessing your earned benefits, we urge you to report these issues.
|
Case Filed |
Case Name |
Summary |
AG Press Release |
|
1/21/2025 |
Michigan and a coalition of 18 states filed this lawsuit to challenge President Trump’s executive order excluding certain newborns from birthright citizenship. This lawsuit is based on a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. If this executive order is allowed to stand, an estimated 150,000 newborns per year—all born in America—would no longer count as Americans. Withholding citizenship from them would reduce the amount of money that the state of Michigan receives from the federal government to fund healthcare, education, and child welfare. Michigan’s hospitals and schools would receive less money too. STATUS: This case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on March 13, 2025. Arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court are scheduled for May 15, 2025. |
||
|
1/28/2025 |
Michigan and a coalition of 21 states filed this lawsuit to challenge a Trump administration policy that pauses disbursements of almost all federal funding to the states (the “OMB Directive”). This lawsuit is based on multiple violations of the U.S. Constitution and federal laws. If this policy is allowed to stand, Michigan and other states would not receive billions of dollars in funds promised by Congress to pay for Medicaid, healthcare, childcare, law enforcement, roads, support for public schools, resources to combat hate crimes and violence against women, disaster relief, and more. STATUS: Preliminary Injunction was ordered on March 6. On April 4, Courts found that the government was not in compliance with the preliminary injunction in regard to FEMA funding. Since, the Trump Administration has released all previously withheld FEMA funds and ended the manual review process. In addition, the preliminary injunction and order requiring FEMA to comply with the preliminary injunction are on appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. |
||
|
2/10/2025 |
Michigan co-led a coalition of 21 states in this lawsuit to challenge the Trump administration’s policy to cut billions of dollars in medical research funding provided by the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”). This lawsuit is based on violations of federal law. If the Trump administration’s policy is allowed to stand, then the University of Michigan stands to lose about $181 million, Michigan State University stands to lose about $27 million, and Wayne State University stands to lose millions more in research funding that they use to cure and treat diseases like cancer. At University of Michigan alone, this would impact 425 NIH-funded trials currently underway, including 161 trials aimed at saving lives. STATUS: A preliminary injunction was issued nationwide on March 5th. NIH has since rescinded the memo on indirect cuts. On April 8, the federal government appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
|
||
|
2/13/2025 |
Michigan co-led a coalition of 13 states in this lawsuit to challenge Elon Musk’s authority to exercise vast power over the entire federal government. This lawsuit is based on violations of the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that federal officers must be appointed to offices created by Congress and confirmed by the Senate. If Musk’s authority is allowed to stand, then Musk will continue to stop federal funds for law enforcement, health care, education from going to states, including Michigan; illegally eliminate agencies created by Congress, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; and access sensitive personal information about Michiganders and using it for illegal purposes. This suit highlights how, with President Trump's approval, Musk has unraveled federal agencies, accessed sensitive data, and caused widespread disruption for state and local governments, federal employees, and the American people. The complaint further asserts that Musk’s actions violate the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which ensures that executive appointments are subject to congressional oversight and Senate confirmation. STATUS: The request for a Temporary Restraining Order was denied on February 18th. Plaintiffs requested expedited discovery, and the Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the case. On Mar. 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia stayed the district court’s order for expedited discovery, holding that defendants “have shown a likelihood of success on their argument that the district court was required to decide their motion to dismiss before allowing discovery.” |
||
|
3/6/2025 |
Maryland et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture et al. (RE: RIF) (PDF) |
Michigan and a coalition of 19 states filed this lawsuit to challenge the Trump administration’s firing of thousands of government employees en masse in violation of laws passed by Congress. This lawsuit is based on violations of multiple federal laws and laws that require the federal government to reimburse states for some of the costs of running unemployment programs. If these mass firings are allowed to stand, then Michigan will pay the costs of unemployed workers, including sudden demand for unemployment insurance, Medicaid, and other services funded by the state taxpayers. STATUS: On April 9, the Fourth Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, issued a stay of the district court’s preliminary injunction order. While the stay is in place, the parties will litigate the merits of the appeal before the Fourth Circuit. |
|
|
3/13/2025 |
New York et al. v. Linda McMahon (RE: DISMANTLING DOE) (PDF) |
Michigan and a coalition of 19 states filed this lawsuit to challenge President Trump’s attempt to dismantle and eliminate the Department of Education. This lawsuit is based on violations of the U.S. Constitution, the separation of powers, and federal law. If the President’s policies are allowed to stand, then Michigan will be harmed in multiple ways. First, billions of dollars in funds could not be given to states, including funds for disabled students. Second, federal student loans and FAFSA applications would be disrupted or taken offline, leaving millions of potential students and current borrowers in limbo and unable to access repayment plans. Last, various services for students with special education needs, including those who are homeless, would disappear. STATUS: Preliminary Injunction hearing was Friday April 25, awaiting Judge's decision.
|
|
|
4/1/2025 |
Colorado et al. v. DHHS, RFK Jr. (RE: PUBLIC HEALTH GRANTS) (PDF) |
Michigan and a coalition of 23 states filed this lawsuit to challenge the Department of Health and Human Service's abrupt and illegal termination of over $11B in critical public health grants nationwide. If these cuts were allowed to stand, Michigan would lose over $379M in grant funding already awarded to and owed to the State. These grants helped support programs to treat mental health and substance abuse, grants from the CDC to support infectious disease control, vaccinations programs for children and vulnerable adults, and more. STATUS: Temporary Restraining Order was issued on April 3rd for the 23 plaintiff states. A hearing was held on April 17 for a Preliminary Injunction. DHHS rescinded the terminations before the Judge made a ruling. |
|
|
4/3/2025 |
California et al. v. Trump, Bondi et al. (RE: ELECTION EO) (PDF) |
Michigan and a coalition of 19 states filed this lawsuit to challenge President Trump's Executive Order No. 14248 (the "Elections Executive Order") which is an undemocratic and illegal attempt to impose sweeping voting restrictions nationwide. The Elections Executive Order attempts to conscript State election officials in the President’s efforts to impose overly burdensome proof-of-citizenship requirements when Americans register to vote. It also seeks to upend common-sense, well-established state procedures for counting ballots — procedures that ensure peoples’ voices are heard. STATUS: On April 23, Department of Justice filed a motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia and to consolidate it with the three similar cases pending before that court, or to stay this case pending their outcome. |
|
|
4/4/2025 |
Rhode Island et al. v. Trump, IMLS et al. (RE: 7 AGENCIES) (PDF) |
Michigan and a coalition of 19 states filed this lawsuit to challenge the Trump administration's dismantling of the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the Minority Business Development Agency and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. If allowed to stand, Michigan could lose over $4.75M in federal library funding, small businesses would lose access to new grants and unionized workers would have a harder time securing their rights. STATUS: Hearing was held on Friday, April 18 for a Temporary Restraining Order, awaiting Judge's ruling. |
|
|
4/10/2025 |
New York et al. v. Dept. of Education, McMahon, et al. (RE: ESSER) (PDF) |
Michigan and a coalition of 15 states filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) and Secretary of Education Linda McMahon for unlawfully rescinding an extended deadline that allowed states and local school districts to use pandemic relief education funds appropriate by Congress. The suit argues that when the DOE terminated those extensions, they caused immediate and irreparable harm to the Michigan Department of Education, local districts, and the State’s public-school students by severing the State’s access to more than $25 million in education stabilization funds. STATUS: Hearing for a Preliminary Injunction is scheduled for May 6th. |
|
|
4/25/2025 |
New York et al. v. Dept. of Education, McMahon, et al. (RE: TITLE VI) (PDF) |
Michigan and a coalition of 19 attorneys general filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Education's threat to withhold federal funding from state and local agencies that refuse to abandon lawful programs and policies and accept the Trump Administration’s new and legally incoherent interpretation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with respect to diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. Michigan, like many other states, declined to sign the certification form as drafted, explaining that there is no lawful or practical way to do so given the Department’s vague, contradictory, and unsupported interpretation of Title VI. In filing today’s lawsuit, Attorney General Nessel and the coalition seek to bar the Department from withholding any funding based on these unlawful conditions. STATUS: Case filed on April 25, 2025 |
|
|
4/29/2025 |
Michigan and a coalition of 15 states filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education and Secretary of Education Linda McMahon for unlawfully rescinding an extended deadline that allowed states and local school districts to use pandemic relief education funds appropriate by Congress. The suit argues that when the DOE terminated those extensions, they caused immediate and irreparable harm to the Michigan Department of Education, local districts, and the State’s public-school students by severing the State’s access to more than $25 million in education stabilization funds. STATUS: Case filed on April 29, 2025 |
Table updated April 29, 2025