I am writing today to announce the closure of the Michigan Messenger. After four years of operation in Michigan, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news into a single site, The American Independent at Americanindependent.com. This is part of a shift in strategy, towards new forms [...]
An abstinence-only presentation provided to numerous school districts in Calhoun and Eaton Counties in October of this year provided false and misleading information to students about HIV, experts allege.
Two county registers of deeds filed a class action lawsuit Monday on behalf of Michigan’s 83 counties alleging that the Mortgage Electronic Registration Services owes millions of dollars in property title transfer taxes.
Despite evidence of the impact of mercury on children and public health, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette last month joined with 24 other state attorneys general in filing a lawsuit to scuttle new EPA regulations that would reduce mercury emissions from power plants.
Earlier this year a group of plaintiffs from Michigan, represented by the Ann Arbor-based Thomas More Law Center, filed a federal lawsuit claiming that the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, passed in 2009, violated their religious freedom and freedom of speech rights. The judge dismissed the case this week.
The plaintiffs include Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association – Michigan; Levon Yuille, pastor of The Bible Church in Ypsilanti, Michigan; René B. Ouellette, pastor of the First Baptist Church in Bridgeport, Michigan; and James Combs, pastor of four different churches in the state.
They filed the lawsuit despite having never been subject to any provision in the hate crimes act, claiming only a hypothetical injury. The court rejected that argument for standing:
As will be further explained below, the Attorney General’s motion to dismiss will be granted because Plaintiffs lack standing and their claims are not ripe when they have not alleged that they intend to “willfully cause[] bodily injury to any person,” or even to “attempt[] to cause bodily injury to any person, because of . . . the actual or perceived . . . sexual orientation [or] gender identity . . . of any person,” in violation of the Hate Crimes Act. In addition, it is entirely speculative that Plaintiffs’ conduct would be prosecuted under the Act.
Here is the full text of the ruling:
Do you know where to vote on Election Day? Do you know what to bring with you? Get comprehensive voter information for your state here.
Sign up for our email newsletter