Michigan SCT Holds KBIC Workers Did Not Violate State Tobacco Law When Transporting Unstamped Smokes

Here is the opinion and the materials in People v. Magnant:

Mich SCT Opinion

Davis Brief

Magnant Brief

State Brief

Magnant Reply

Davis Reply

Prior post here.

Michigan SCT to Hear Appeal of KBIC Employees Charged with Criminally Violating State Tobacco Transportation Law

Here are materials so far in the cases captioned People v. Davis and People v. Magnant:

Majority Opinion [Mich. COA]

Dissent [Mich. COA]

SCT Order Granting Review

Circuit Court materials:

Defendants Due Process Motion

Defendants Motion to Quash Information

Defendants Motion to Suppress

People Response to Due Process Motion

People Response to Motion to Quash

People Response to Motion to Suppress

 

Michigan SCT Rules Former Tribal Official who Committed Crime in Office Eligible to Run for State Office

Here is the opinion in Paquin v. City of St. Ignace:

michigan-sct-opinion.pdf

And the lone brief I was able to unearth:

ag-brief.pdf

Lower court decision here.

Mr. Paquin’s indictment here.

Consent to Termination of Parental Rights Decision in Michigan Supreme Court

Opinion here

The ICWA Appellate Clinic co-represented the tribe in this case.

This case involves a complicated question of state statute interpretation regarding a voluntary consent to a termination of parental right in the face of a state termination petition. In this case, the dad consented to termination before the termination hearing. The children were later placed in a tribal-approved foster placement, and the dad withdrew his consent to termination. The question was whether dad could do that under Michigan statute.

None of the protections in MCL 712B.15, [mirroring ICWA’s main protections in an involuntary proceeding] which are designed for contested and adversarial proceedings, remains relevant once a parent voluntarily releases his or her rights under MCL 712B.13. When the court accepted Williams’s release, and the proceedings went from adversarial to cooperative, the protections of MCL 712B.15 did not apply.

However, the Court also held,

That is, Williams may withdraw his consent, but because he is still subject to MCL 712B.15, DHHS may refile a termination petition. MCL 712B.15. And, under MCL 712B.13(3), a parent who consents during an involuntary termination proceeding is not entitled to “the return of the Indian child” to him or her.

Instead, the child returns to the position the child was in before his or her parent consented to the termination of parental rights. Williams’s children were in foster care when he consented to the termination of his parental rights, his children will remain in foster care, and Williams will be once again subject to the procedures and protections of MCL 712B.15. DHHS may proceed with its termination case if it chooses, and if DHHS can satisfy the heightened requirements of MCL 712B.15, Williams’s parental rights can be terminated.

Briefing on the case is here.

Briefing Completed in Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act Case

At the Michigan Supreme Court:

Order Granting Review

Appellant (Father)’s Brief

Appellee (Macomb County/State)’s Brief

Sault Tribe Amicus Brief (MSU Indian Law Clinic, ICWA Appellate Project co-wrote this brief)

American Indian Law Section_AmicusBrief

Appellant Reply

Oral Argument Scheduling Order

State of Michigan Celebrates Reunification Day

Link to news coverage here.

The Michigan Supreme Court ceremonially praised the efforts of family court participants, including Tribal leaders, for restoring children to their families on June 24, 2016, in Lansing.  Five judges from Michigan’s Tribal State Federal Judicial Forum were present.  According to the article, more than half of foster care children were returned to their families in 2015.

Briefs in Star Tickets v. Chumash Casino Resort

Materials and documents for the leave to appeal in Michigan’s Supreme Court:

Defendant/Appellant’s Application for Leave to Appeal

Plaintiff-Appellee’s Brief in Opposition to Application for Leave to Appeal

Defendant/Appellant’s Brief In Reply To Opposition

Amicus brief in support of petition from State Bar’s American Indian Law Section

Our motion for leave to file and our lodged amicus brief in support of petition