The Michigan Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on whether the state’s felony murder sentencing standard is constitutional and what to do if it’s not.

In Michigan, people over 18 who is are of convicted of a felony such as armed robbery where someone is killed in the process are sentenced to life with no chance of parole.

In an order issued Friday, the court said the questions it will consider include whether life without parole for felony murder violates the Eighth Amendment, whether the state should require proof of malice or intent to commit murder in order to impose the sentence, and whether a decision might be applied retroactively.

The felony murder standard means prosecutors do not have to specifically prove malice or intent. If the court reverses that standard entirely or in part, it could affect the sentences of hundreds of inmates who’ve spent decades in prison.

Timothy Baughman with the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan told the Michigan Public Radio Network the challenge to that standard raises difficult questions. He said there are hundreds of inmates serving life without parole in Michigan.

“Should we overrule that and apply it to everybody who’s convicted and still in prison and alive,” said Baughman, “and some of those, they’re not like the getaway drivers, there are some very vicious murderers.”

But attorney Deborah LaBelle with the American Civil Liberties Union said some of the people convicted under the standard are not the actual killers even if they were involved in the underlying felony.

She said Michigan’s felony murder law is very sweeping in that it treats convicted killers and accomplices the same way when it comes to sentencing.

“If someone dies at the hands of someone else and you were in any way involved with the felony, the crime surrounding the homicide, you get punished the exact same way as the person who committed the murder.”

If the Supreme Court overrules its almost 50-year-old precedent, it would also have to determine the remedy.

“What should we do?” LaBelle said. “Should people be resentenced? Should there be a term of years that we determine is appropriate? How do we handle this?”

The court has not set a date for oral arguments.

The Michigan Supreme Court will hear arguments next month over who gets custody of a frozen embryo following a couple’s divorce.

David and Sarah Markiewicz had four children while they were married. Three were conceived via in-vitro fertilization using the husband’s sperm and the wife’s sister providing the eggs.

The final unresolved issue left from their 2020 divorce is possession of the final frozen embryo.

The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in December of 2023 that the frozen embryo would go to the ex-husband because he had the most direct biological connection. The court also rejected an argument that the embryo should go to Sarah Markiewicz under Michigan’s reproductive freedom amendment.

The dissenting opinion argued the ruling ignored a contractual agreement and should be sent back to a trial court to consider the contract in light of the state’s reproductive freedom amendment.

Attorney Liisa Speaker, who chairs the Family Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan, told the Michigan Public Radio Network that people often avoid tough conversations when planning pregnancies using assisted reproductive technologies.

“What if one of them dies before the embryo is implanted and what happens then? They need to be thinking about what happens in the event of a divorce,” she said. “If we have multiple embryos that haven’t been used, what are we going to do with them?”

Speaker said a Supreme Court decision could help set some clear guidance for judges to follow in disputes as IVF pregnancies continue to become more common.

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — The Michigan Supreme Court announced its justices have selected a new chief justice with the upcoming departure of the current incumbent.

The justices unanimously selected Megan Cavanagh to succeed Elizabeth Clement when she steps down, according to a Thursday announcement from the court. In February, Clement announced her intention to retire from the court before the end of April.

“The Court decided to make the choice now to ensure that the transition will be as smooth as possible and to confirm that our commitment to the path the Court is on will not waver,” Cavanagh said in a statement.

Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has the opportunity to appoint a justice to fill Clement’s vacancy and create a 6-1 majority of Democratic-backed justices. Whoever is appointed must run for retention in 2026 for a full eight-year term.

Michigan’s justices are technically nonpartisan, but they are nominated by state parties or appointed by the governor in the case of a vacancy. The court currently has a 5-2 majority of justices backed by Democrats after picking up a seat in the November election.

Cavanagh, backed by Democrats, narrowly beat out an incumbent justice in 2018. She is up for another term in 2026.

Clement was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2017 by Republican Gov. Rick Snyder. She is leaving to join the National Center for State Courts as president.

“I believe strongly that collaboration and cooperation are the keys to building public trust in our branch of government,” Cavanagh said.

–Reporting by Isabella Volmert, Associated Press

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — The chief justice of the Michigan Supreme Court announced Wednesday that she is stepping down from the court by the end of April, opening the door for the court to have a 6-1 majority of Democratic-backed justices.

Elizabeth Clement did not give a reason for her upcoming resignation.

“Leading our state’s highest court has been an opportunity to continue a proud record of independence, fairness, and commitment to the rule of law,” Clement said in a statement. “I am thankful to my colleagues for their support and friendship, as well as for their willingness to seek common ground in serving the people of Michigan.”

Michigan’s justices are technically nonpartisan, but they are nominated by parties or appointed by the governor in the case of a vacancy. The court currently has a 5-2 majority of justices backed by Democrats after picking up a seat in the November election.

Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has the opportunity to appoint a justice to fill Clement’s vacancy and create a 6-1 majority of Democratic-backed justices. Whoever fills the vacancy must run for retention in 2026 for a full eight-year term.

Clement was appointed to the Michigan Supreme Court in 2017 by Republican Gov. Rick Snyder. She secured a full term in the 2018 general election and her term was set to end in 2026. In November 2022, she was chosen to serve as Chief Justice.

“Going forward, my plan is to continue working to find ways to bring people together, to put data to work, and to make a difference in the lives of people so that interactions with our justice system result in safer communities and stronger families,” Clement said in the statement released by the court.

–Reporting by Isabella Volmert, Associated Press

Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy’s office is asking the Michigan Supreme Court to reverse a ruling that struck down the state’s terroristic threats law. The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled last week that the law is unconstitutional.

A three-judge panel unanimously ruled the law does not specifically require prosecutors to prove a statement or communication was intentionally threatening or reckless.

Special Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Timothy Baughman wrote the Court of Appeals decision missed the mark because even if that were the case, there are remedies that are not so broad as throwing out the entire law.

Baughman wrote “the Court ignores completely its obligation to construe the statute as constitutional unless the attacking party shows that no set of circumstances exists under which the act would be valid.”

Defendant Michael Kvasnicka was charged with making a threat of terrorism and using a computer to commit a crime based on a social media message to a girl that mentioned shooting up her school. The appeals court opinion said the law was vague enough to allow jokes or hyperbole to be swept into its net.

The prosecutor not only asked the Supreme Court to take the case, but to put a hold on the appeals court ruling and to put the case on a fast track because a decision could affect criminal prosecutions across Michigan that are underway right now.