The Michigan Department of Attorney General (DAG) works tirelessly to protect and serve the people of Michigan. The DAG handles a wide range of legal matters from civil and criminal cases, to providing legal counsel to state agencies and officers, to advocating for crime victims.
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 (CIU) reviews cases where someone is saying they did not commit the crime(s) of which they were convicted. There must be new evidence that shows they did not commit the crime. This new evidence must rise to the legal standard of "clear and convincing" evidence of innocence.
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.
Elder abuse happens when someone hurts, ignores, or takes advantage of an older adult. This may be someone who is of advanced age or is vulnerable and unable to protect themselves due to a mental or physical issues.
An expungement removes a conviction from public view. Most employers, landlords, and background checks will not see it. Law enforcement and some licensing agencies may still access it. This page will help explain who qualifies, how the process works, and where to get help.
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 workers enjoy a wide variety of legal protections regarding issues at work. There are a number of state and federal statutes that protect their wages, safety, and well-being.
Opioid addiction knows no social or economic barriers; it doesn’t care about race or gender. It claims young and old alike. The Michigan Department of Attorney General is committed to fighting this crisis.
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 17, 2026
LANSING – The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) request for a rehearing of its decision (PDF) affirming the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan’s decision to dismiss a lawsuit that unlawfully sought Michigan’s full electronic voter list with no redactions for sensitive personal information. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel filed the motion to dismiss the lawsuit on behalf of the Michigan Department of State and the State of Michigan to protect the data of Michigan residents, including full dates of birth, driver’s licenses, Social Security numbers, and personal identification card numbers. The Sixth Circuit was unpersuaded by DOJ’s petition for rehearing en banc, seeking to have the entire bench of judges in the Court of Appeals re-hear the case decided earlier this year by the usual appellate panel of three judges.
“Courts have made it clear that the federal government does not have the right to demand the personal data of millions of Michigan voters, and I am relieved the Sixth Circuit stood by its decision” said Attorney General Nessel. “My office will not stand by while the Trump administration desperately tries to intimidate voters from making their voices heard in the upcoming election, and we will continue to defend the people of Michigan from efforts that compromise their privacy.”
“When the federal government tried to overstep their authority and demanded the sensitive personal information of Michigan’s voters, I said no – and I’ll see you in court,” said Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson. “Now for the third time, a federal court has ruled in our favor, blocking the DOJ from violating the rights and privacy of Michigan citizens. We will not give in to this administration’s threats, intimidation, or abuse of power in this case or in any future attacks on the state’s clear Constitutional role to oversee and administer elections.”
In its lawsuit, the DOJ argued that it has a right to Michigan’s unredacted electronic voter list under the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (CRA). The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan rejected that argument, concluding that the electronic voter list is not a paper or record that comes within an election official’s possession for purposes of disclosure under the CRA. The Sixth Circuit affirmed that the qualified voter file is not a record subject to disclosure under the CRA.
###
Media Contact:
Administration Threatens to Withhold $10 Million in Federal Funding Unless Sensitive Information of Millions of Drivers Turned Over