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.
August 13, 2025
LANSING – Yesterday, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted a preliminary injunction blocking the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from granting the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) access to Medicaid beneficiaries’ personal healthcare data. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel joined a multistate coalition in filing a lawsuit challenging the decision by HHS.
“I am relieved that the Court has recognized that the Trump Administration cannot abandon longstanding policies to personal healthcare data to advance a political agenda,” Nessel said. “Medicaid exists to serve the needs of some of our most vulnerable residents, not to provide unrelated agencies access to some of our most sensitive information. I will continue to fight to ensure Michiganders’ medical data remains protected and confidential.”
In its Order, the Court recognized that HHS and DHS did not engage in any reasoned decision-making before abruptly changing longstanding policy that prohibited HHS from sharing information with DHS for immigration enforcement purposes. The Court further identified the agencies’ failure to consider whether to limit the scope of data provided to DHS — rather than providing all private medical data for millions of Medicaid recipients.
The Court’s Order enjoins HHS “from sharing Medicaid data obtained from the plaintiff states with DHS for immigration enforcement purposes” until the end of the lawsuit or 14 days after “both DHS and HHS have completed a reasoned decision making process (or rulemaking, if necessary) that considers the matters discussed in this ruling, along with any other relevant policy tradeoffs or legal considerations.”
###
Media Contact: