Michigan
ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û of Michigan v. Froman
Michigan requires boards of county canvassers to certify the results of an election within 14 days after the election based on the total number of votes reported from each location. The law doesn't allow them to withhold certification. Kalamazoo Board of County Canvassers member, Robert Froman, has made clear that he would decline to certify the November 2024 election under certain circumstances. This lawsuit asks the state's courts to make clear that Mr. Froman is duty bound to certify the election based on the number of votes reported.
Status: Closed (Settled)
View Case
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2023
O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed
The ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û, the ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û of Northern California, and the ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û of Southern California filed amicus briefs in support of everyday people fighting for government transparency and accountability in two cases set for review by the U.S. Supreme Court this Term: O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed.
Status: Ongoing
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2020
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v EEOC & Aimee Stephens
Aimee Stephens had worked for nearly six years as a funeral director at R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes when she informed the funeral home’s owner that she is a transgender woman. She was fired, the EEOC sued on her behalf, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Aimee’s employer engaged in unlawful sex discrimination when it fired her because she’s transgender. We represented Aimee Stephens in front of the U.S. Supreme Court — and won.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
Stay informed about our latest work in the courts.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û's privacy statement.
All Cases
24 Michigan Cases
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2024
Carpenter v. United States
This case concerns the First Step Act of 2018, in which Congress made major reductions to the mandatory minimum sentences for certain federal drug and firearm offenses. These changes result in sentences many decades shorter than were required under the previous laws. The question in this case was whether people who were initially sentenced prior to enactment of the First Step Act, but whose sentences were vacated and remanded for resentencing after enactment of the law, can benefit from its major reductions in applicable mandatory minimums. For defendants like Mr. Carpenter, who was originally sentenced to a draconian 116 years in prison as a result of the pre-First Step Act mandatory minimums, applying the First Step Act can mean the difference between dying in prison and having the opportunity to eventually go free. Unfortunately, although there is a split among federal courts of appeals on this question, the Supreme Court denied cert in this case in February 2024.
Status: Closed (Dismissed)
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Criminal Law Reform
Racial Justice
Carpenter v. United States
This case concerns the First Step Act of 2018, in which Congress made major reductions to the mandatory minimum sentences for certain federal drug and firearm offenses. These changes result in sentences many decades shorter than were required under the previous laws. The question in this case was whether people who were initially sentenced prior to enactment of the First Step Act, but whose sentences were vacated and remanded for resentencing after enactment of the law, can benefit from its major reductions in applicable mandatory minimums. For defendants like Mr. Carpenter, who was originally sentenced to a draconian 116 years in prison as a result of the pre-First Step Act mandatory minimums, applying the First Step Act can mean the difference between dying in prison and having the opportunity to eventually go free. Unfortunately, although there is a split among federal courts of appeals on this question, the Supreme Court denied cert in this case in February 2024.
Sep 2024
Status: Closed (Dismissed)
View case
Michigan
Jan 2024
Williams v. City of Detroit
This case seeks to hold Detroit police accountable for the wrongful arrest of our client due to officers’ reliance on a false match from face recognition technology.
Status: Closed (Settled)
View case
Michigan
Privacy & Technology
+2 Issues
Williams v. City of Detroit
This case seeks to hold Detroit police accountable for the wrongful arrest of our client due to officers’ reliance on a false match from face recognition technology.
Jan 2024
Status: Closed (Settled)
View case
Michigan Supreme Court
Sep 2023
Long Lake Township v. Maxon
On September 8, 2023, the ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û, the ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û of Michigan, and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy filed an amicus brief in the Michigan Supreme Court arguing that the local government deploying an unmanned drone to take aerial photographs of the appellant’s property violated the Fourth Amendment.
Status: Ongoing
View case
Michigan Supreme Court
National Security
Privacy & Technology
Long Lake Township v. Maxon
On September 8, 2023, the ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û, the ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û of Michigan, and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy filed an amicus brief in the Michigan Supreme Court arguing that the local government deploying an unmanned drone to take aerial photographs of the appellant’s property violated the Fourth Amendment.
Sep 2023
Status: Ongoing
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2023
Polselli v. Internal Revenue Service
This case concerns the scope of the IRS’s obligation under a federal law to provide notice to individuals that it is seeking their records from a third party, such as a bank, accountant, or lawyer.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Privacy & Technology
Polselli v. Internal Revenue Service
This case concerns the scope of the IRS’s obligation under a federal law to provide notice to individuals that it is seeking their records from a third party, such as a bank, accountant, or lawyer.
May 2023
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
Michigan
Nov 2022
Buck v. Gordon
A state-contracted, taxpayer-funded child placing agency sued the State of Michigan claiming a constitutional right to discriminate against prospective foster and adoptive families headed by same-sex couples in violation of State contracts. The ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û, representing prospective adoptive parents Kristy and Dana Dumont, is seeking to intervene in this lawsuit in support of the State.
Status: Closed (Dismissed)
View case
Michigan
LGBTQ Rights
Buck v. Gordon
A state-contracted, taxpayer-funded child placing agency sued the State of Michigan claiming a constitutional right to discriminate against prospective foster and adoptive families headed by same-sex couples in violation of State contracts. The ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û, representing prospective adoptive parents Kristy and Dana Dumont, is seeking to intervene in this lawsuit in support of the State.
Nov 2022
Status: Closed (Dismissed)
View case