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.
June 03, 2025
LANSING – Today, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel filed a motion (PDF) with the Michigan Court of Claims in Northland v Nessel, a case challenging several abortion restrictions under Michigan’s fundamental constitutional right to reproductive freedom. The motion urges the Court to find the abortion restrictions unconstitutionally discriminatory.
On May 13, the Court struck down several state abortion regulations, including the 24-hour waiting period, the informed consent requirements, and the ban on advanced practice clinicians providing abortion care, but upheld the mandatory coercion screening provisions. The Attorney General’s motion requests that the Court take a second look at the coercion screening provisions, holding that they unconstitutionally discriminate against patients seeking abortion care.
As the Attorney General noted in her post-trial brief (PDF), the Michigan Constitution prohibits the state from discriminating against individuals who exercise their fundamental right to reproductive freedom — a right that includes abortion care. Each of the challenged abortion restrictions are discriminatory, Attorney General Nessel contends, because they treat those seeking an abortion differently than those seeking to access any other form of reproductive healthcare service without good reason for doing so.
“Women wishing to continue their pregnancy, those seeking management for a miscarriage, and men pursuing a vasectomy all may do so without this level of state interference,” Nessel said. “Michigan residents and their healthcare providers deserve the same freedom when it comes to the deeply personal decision to have an abortion. The people of Michigan have made clear that unequal treatment has no place in our state, and I will continue working to ensure that our laws reflect the constitutional standards that Michigan voters have demanded.”
Attorney General Nessel’s motion asks the Court to amend or reconsider its May 13 opinion and hold that the challenged coercion screening provisions are unconstitutional.
###
Media Contact: