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.
July 13, 2021
LANSING - A Court of Claims judge dismissed a lawsuit today against the Attorney General in response to the Attorney General's motion for summary disposition. Judge Cynthia Stephens said she dismissed the lawsuit because plaintiffs did not respond to the Attorney General's motion in a timely manner.
Last month, Attorney General Dana Nessel pointed out she was not the proper defendant in Mothering Justice, et al v Nessel, which challenges the constitutionality of Acts 368 and 369 - laws that were passed by the Legislature in September 2018 related to initiative petitions to increase the minimum wage and to provide for the accrual of paid sick leave.
The initiative petitions were originally slated to be put on the ballot in 2018 as a result of a citizen-initiated petition drive. Instead, the Legislature adopted the measures and then amended them with a simple majority. The legality of the Legislature's use of the "adopt and amend" procedure was approved in an opinion by former Attorney General Bill Schuette and ultimately heard by the Michigan Supreme Court in 2019, pursuant to a request for advisory opinion. In the case, the Supreme Court asked the Attorney General to establish a conflict wall and appoint two sets of attorneys from the office to argue both sides of the issue. AG Nessel joined the side of her office that argued that the process, and thus the new laws, were unconstitutional. Ultimately, though, the Supreme Court declined to issue an advisory opinion.
In the motion she filed in this case, Nessel explained that she agreed with the policy arguments set forth in the complaint, but nevertheless sought summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) because, based on the allegations in the complaint, she was not the proper party against whom to bring any of the complaint's three Counts.
"I continue to agree that the actions undertaken by the Republican legislature to adopt and then gut the substance of the One Fair Wage and Paid Sick Leave Act were unconstitutional and undermined the will of Michigan residents," Nessel said. "Suing the Department of Attorney General does not bring us any closer to resolving this issue. It is my hope Mr. Brewer will take the proper avenue to argue the merits of this case in court."
Judge Stephens' order can be found on the Department's website.
A copy of the motion filed for summary disposition can be found here. Additionally, a copy of the brief filed alongside the motion can be found here.
A copy of OAG 7306 from former AG Schuette can be found here.
###
Author: