Schuette: Supreme Court should reconsider some 2010 decisions

Republican Attorney General Bill Schuette is asking the new Republican majority of the Michigan Supreme Court to reconsider several last minute rulings made at the end of the court’s 2010 session before conservatives took over the court.

Schuette says in a press release he is targeting four “decisions handed down by an eleventh-hour lame-duck Court.”

The top case Schuette wants over turned is MEA v. Secretary of State. In that case, the majority ruled that it was not improper for schools districts to deduct payments to the Michigan Education Association Political Action Committee, so long as the MEA refunded the costs the districts incurred in processing the deductions. According to Schuette’s release:

“If the Attorney General’s request for a rehearing is granted, his office will argue that the involvement of the State in the collection of funds for a political action committee is not a proper use of taxpayer resources under the Michigan Campaign Finance Act.”

“The AG is clearly wasting the taxpayers time and money trying to do repeal something that has already been decided,” says Doug Pratt, spokesman for the Michigan Education Association. “That’s the way it has been done for decades… It’s a shame the AG is wasting taxpayer money this way.”

Meanwhile, Schuette is also eying King v. State of Michigan, which ruled that the state could not withdraw an insurance license mistakenly approved by the Office of Financial and Insurance Regulations. The AG says he will argue that a license mistakenly issued to an ineligible felon can be revoked.

In Anglers of the AuSable v. Department of Environmental Quality, the court ruled that citizens could sue the state to challenge permits issued by the state’s environmental agencies. Schuette will argue that the case is moot and the ruling will cost the state too much money.

Michigan Messenger reported on this ruling shortly after it was delivered. In that report, Messenger quoted an attorney representing citizens in the case:

“This sends a signal that our lakes, streams, and the Great Lakes will not be plundered by relaxed legal principles that condone harmful diversions and exploitation,“ said Jim Olson, who represented the Anglers before the Court. ”It fully restores the rights of citizens to sue the state for permitting projects that are likely to degrade the environment and our states’ waters.”

And finally in Duncan v. Governor of Michigan, the Court ruled that a lower court could proceed in reviewing how funding for indigent defense is operated. Schuette says the he will argue the courts are not the place for that argument, rather the legislative branch is.