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 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 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.
Michigan Identity Theft Support
Michigan Attorney General's robocall initiative is leading several efforts to protect Michigan residents from the billion plus robocalls made to them every year.
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.
April 23, 2020
LANSING – While many assistant attorneys general were working around the clock to defend various Michigan state officials in a ground-breaking case known as Gary B, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel attempted to weigh in last summer on the other side by filing an amicus brief urging the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to conclude that the Constitution guarantees a fundamental right to a minimally adequate education.
In her amicus brief, Nessel argued that “the absence of a minimally adequate public education jeopardizes the very foundation on which our American democracy rests.”
The Court shut her down, refusing to accept her amicus submission on behalf of the Plaintiffs because it misunderstood the Department of Attorney General’s conflict-wall process and the fact that AG Nessel’s amicus supporting the Plaintiffs played a separate role in the case from that of the attorneys in her office who represented the Defendant state officials.
At the core of the case was whether or not a state and its public education departments at all levels are required to elements of a basic minimal education that would provide students of foundational literacy.
Deeply disappointed to not have a role in the case, AG Nessel anxiously watched from the sidelines, knowing that the elements of the case would ultimately determine the judges’ decision: 1) lack of qualified teachers; 2) classrooms that fail to satisfy minimal state health and safety standards; and 3) lack of books and materials suitable for students.
Nessel praised the decision released today by the Sixth Circuit, which agreed with the arguments she advanced in her submission and supports a student’s right to fundamental literacy.
“I am overjoyed with the Court’s decision recognizing that the Constitution guarantees a right to a basic minimum education,” Nessel said. “This recognition is the only way to guarantee that students who are required to attend school will actually have a teacher, adequate educational materials, and a physical environment that does not subject them to filth, unsafe drinking water, and physical danger. Education is a gateway to exercising other fundamental rights such as free speech and the right to citizenship, it is essential in order to function in today’s complex society, and it is a necessary vehicle empower individuals to rise above circumstances that have been foisted on them through no fault of their own. Every child is entitled to the opportunity to participate fully in American life.”
A copy of the Court’s decision is available here.
###
Author: