Both of Michigan’s U.S. Senators voted against a procedural move to end the federal government shutdown.

Seven Democrats and one independent joined Republicans last night, taking the first step toward funding the government. GOP Senators agreed to hold a vote next month on extending the Affordable Care Act tax credits. The deal does not guarantee they’ll be renewed. Democratic senators Elissa Slotkin and Gary Peters say promising to hold a vote on the issue isn’t good enough.

The compromise would reverse the mass firings that took place when the shutdown began and ensure federal workers get back pay.  

-Reporting by Pat Batcheller  

Additional headlines from Monday, November 10, 2025

Supreme Court order blocks SNAP payments

On Saturday the U.S. Supreme Court issued an emergency stay blocking the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition from issuing full payments for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP. This pauses benefits for 42 million Americans, including many children and the elderly.

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services director, Elizabeth Hertel, says she is disappointed by the move. MDHHS began sending out full payments on Thursday, however the new order prevents the department from finalizing payments for Michigan residents who have not yet received their payments for November.

To fill the gap, Governor Whitmer announced an additional $4.5 million to the Food Bank Council of Michigan to feed families including food delivery services for families who are unable to visit a food bank. Dial 2-1-1 or visit mi211.org to find assistance. 

Last week, the city of Detroit launched a network of food pantries map with 85 certified food pantries. Mayor Mike Duggan says the city authorized $1.75 million for the project. People can visit detroitmi.gov to find a location near them.  

Catholic Charities provide hunger relief

Catholic Charities of Southeast Michigan is providing emergency relief while SNAP benefits are in limbo for 1.4 million families in Michigan.   

People can drop into the Center for the Works of Mercy on 10301 Woodward Ave in Detroit on Thursdays between 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. and Saturdays beginning Nov. 22nd through Dec. 6th between 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.  

According to DetroitCatholic.com, the city of Detroit donated food from Forgotten Harvest to support the center.

The Catholic Charities of Southeast Michigan are also asking people to donate unexpired AND nonperishable food on weekdays between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. or provide monetary donations. The group is matching donations up to $20,000 thanks to an anonymous donor. The center is also looking for volunteers.  

MSU study brings solar panels and farming together 

Michigan State University researchers are building an outdoor laboratory to see if solar panels can improve crop production for farmers.

Anthony Kendall is an Assistant Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at MSU. He says the project involves researchers from different fields who can offer a variety of perspectives. 

“There’s a real asymmetry of solar installation information that exists right now. And we hope by doing open science with a lot of community feedback, to really just provide better information to everyone.”

He says they’ll also use the project to teach farmers how to use solar panels in under-producing areas of farm fields. The project is funded by a $3.6 million grant from the National Science Foundation.  

MDOT regulations

The Michigan Department of Transportation is still collecting public comment on a set of proposed regulations that could put parameters on how people can protest on MDOT owned roads.

The new rules would require protestors to get a permit before occupying an area such as an overpass or rest stop. MDOT’s Engineer Greg Losch said on the podcast “Talking Michigan Transportation” that the rules are a response to complaints from the public.  

“We’ll be responding to the public complaint, like, ‘hey, I stopped at whatever rest area and someone asked me to sign a petition and I don’t really want to be solicited for that. Why why are you allowing this, MDOT?’” 

Losch said the regulations intend to ensure public safety. Activists argue that this is an infringement of First Amendment rights. MDOT will be accepting public comments on its website through November 20th.  

If there is something happening in your neighborhood that you think we should know about, drop us a line at DetroitEveningReport@wdet.org. And don’t forget to subscribe to the Detroit Evening Report podcast, available wherever you get your podcasts. 

Listen to the latest episode of the “Detroit Evening Report” on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, NPR.org or wherever you get your podcasts.

The U.S. Supreme Court could decide if a case involving the Line 5 oil pipeline stays in Michigan court or goes back before federal judges.

The case began in 2019 when Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel sued in state court to partially shut down Line 5. Nessel cited three state laws to make an environmental case for stopping the project.

It then got moved to federal court in 2021 at the request of Enbridge, the Canadian company that operates the pipeline. That request came much later than a 30-day window to do so, partly because Enbridge says it was waiting on the result of a similar lawsuit from Michigan’s governor.

A lower federal court granted an exception to the timeline. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, didn’t buy that argument and sent the case back to the 30th Circuit Court in Ingham County where a hearing was held in January.

The Supreme Court, on Enbridge’s appeal, will decide whether there are exceptions to the 30-day period to remove a case to federal court.

Enbridge argues, while the Sixth Circuit took a narrow view of that time frame, other appellate courts have allowed exceptions. It believes the case belongs in federal court because the matter butts up against international treaty law and some federal laws as well.

In a statement, Enbridge spokesperson Ryan Duffy said the company is “encouraged” by the Supreme Court decision Monday to take up the case.

“The District Court cited the important federal issues in this case, including U.S.-Canada Treaty issues, and the fact that litigation of these issues was already pending in another case in federal court. 

However, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, deciding that district courts have no authority to give exceptions to the 30-day time limit.

The Sixth Circuit’s remand decision is in conflict with decisions from two other federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, which both held that there can be exceptions to the 30-day limit. The Supreme Court review will resolve this conflict in the courts of appeals,” Duffy said in an email.

Meanwhile, the Attorney General’s office is maintaining its position.

“The Department’s lawsuit is based on state claims and law, and it belongs before a Michigan court.  We remain undeterred in our commitment to protect the Great Lakes, especially from the devastating catastrophe a potential Line 5 rupture would wreak upon all of Michigan,” a written statement from AG spokesperson Kimberly Bush said.

If the case goes back to federal court, the proceedings that have happened in state court may be moot. Meanwhile, the legal fight between Enbridge and the governor is already playing out in federal court.

All this is happening as Enbridge tries to move forward with a project to build a tunnel around a replacement section of the Line 5 pipeline that runs through the Straits of Mackinac. That project is currently in the permitting process.

Enbridge says the tunnel would make the pipeline safer by protecting it from anchor strikes. Environmental groups are fighting it, saying it could potentially rupture and dump massive amounts of oil into the Great Lakes.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court on Friday ruled that individual judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear the fate of President Donald Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship.

The outcome was a victory for the Republican president, who has complained about individual judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda.

But a conservative majority left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide. Trump’s order would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally.

The cases now return to lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the high court ruling, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion. Enforcement of the policy can’t take place for another 30 days, Barrett wrote.

The justices agreed with the Trump administration, as well as President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration before it, that judges are overreaching by issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of just the parties before the court.

The president, making a rare appearance to hold a news conference in the White House briefing room, said that the decision was “amazing” and a “monumental victory for the Constitution,” the separation of powers and the rule of law.

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, “The court’s decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the Constitution.” This is so, Sotomayor said, because the administration may be able to enforce a policy even when it has been challenged and found to be unconstitutional by a lower court.

Rights groups that sued over the policy filed new court documents following the high court ruling, taking up a suggestion from Justice Brett Kavanaugh that judges still may be able to reach anyone potentially affected by the birthright citizenship order by declaring them part of “putative nationwide class.” Kavanaugh was part of the court majority on Friday but wrote a separate concurring opinion.

States that also challenged the policy in court said they would try to show that the only way to effectively protect their interests was through a nationwide hold.

“We have every expectation we absolutely will be successful in keeping the 14th Amendment as the law of the land and of course birthright citizenship as well,” said Attorney General Andrea Campbell of Massachusetts.

Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

In a notable Supreme Court decision from 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the court held that the only children who did not automatically receive U.S. citizenship upon being born on U.S. soil were the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation; those born on foreign ships; and those born to members of sovereign Native American tribes.

The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or “right of the soil” — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them.

Trump and his supporters have argued that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen, which he called “a priceless and profound gift” in the executive order he signed on his first day in office.

The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, a phrase used in the amendment, and therefore are not entitled to citizenship.

But states, immigrants and rights groups that have sued to block the executive order have accused the administration of trying to unsettle the broader understanding of birthright citizenship that has been accepted since the amendment’s adoption.

Judges have uniformly ruled against the administration.

The Justice Department had argued that individual judges lack the power to give nationwide effect to their rulings.

The Trump administration instead wanted the justices to allow Trump’s plan to go into effect for everyone except the handful of people and groups that sued. Failing that, the administration argued that the plan could remain blocked for now in the 22 states that sued. New Hampshire is covered by a separate order that is not at issue in this case.

The justice also agreed that the administration may make public announcements about how it plans to carry out the policy if it eventually is allowed to take effect.

–Reporting by Mark Sherman, Associated Press

A state House committee voted Wednesday to advance legislation to blunt the impact of a Michigan Supreme Court decision on automatic life-without-parole sentences for young adults.

The bills could allow for longer sentences for 19- and 20-year-olds convicted of first-degree and felony murder, among other serious crimes, and allow prosecutors more time to review cases for potential resentencing.

“Life without parole was not given out lightly to begin with,” said Rep. Sarah Lightner (R-Springport), who chairs the House Judiciary Committee and sponsored the bills. “You have to remember these people are murderers.”

The court ruling released in April struck down automatic life without parole for 19- and 20-year-olds convicted of first-degree and felony murder as unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment. It followed a similar ruling applying to defendants 18 years old and younger.

Now, people who already got mandatory life sentences are being resentenced. Sometimes, that will be to multiple shorter prison terms. The current default in Michigan is for sentences to be served concurrently.

Lightner said concurrent prison terms are not tough enough. “There’s only justice given to the first victim,” she told Michigan Public Radio. “There’s nothing in law that says you have to stack the sentences consecutively, because we have concurrent sentencing.”

Consecutive years-long sentences would effectively be life in prison in some cases.

Deborah LaBelle, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan said the Michigan Supreme Court decision is clear on young lifers. She said sentences of life with no chance of parole for young defendants should be rare.

“They should, when they have had the opportunity to mature and grow, be looked at again and determined whether in fact they have been rehabilitated and should be able to at some point rejoin the community,” she said.

LaBelle says the legislation would probably be found unconstitutional if signed into law because it would force consecutive sentences automatically without court hearings.

The bills, which now go to the House floor, were adopted on party-line votes.