New report shows Michigan Supreme Court often rules against the environment
The Michigan Supreme Court has recently established a track record for ruling against the environment - as justices have ruled negatively against four of the most recent cases that had “green” impacts, according to a new report.
The Ann Arbor-based Michigan League of Conservation Voters has compiled a “Green Gavels” report that has sifted through the past 30 years of cases adjudicated by the Michigan Supreme Court.
The Michigan League of Conservation Voters is known for its green scorecards for state legislators, and began tracking Republican Gov. Rick Snyder’s record when he took office. The league endorsed Sndyer during his campaign for the governorship.
With the addition of the “Green Gavels,” each of the three branches of government is now rated for its environmental impacts.
Students in the Environmental Law and Policy Program at the University of Michigan Law School identified 34 cases from the past 30 years that had implications on environmental issues and policy.
The five most recent court cases on which the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that have concerned the environment. Red gavels signify a decision that had negative environmental implications. The findings are a part of the newest report from the Michigan League of Conservation Voters.
From the online report
From those cases, staff at the League of Conservation Voters assigned green (positive), yellow (neutral) and red (negative) gavels to justices past and present, as well as to court case outcomes.
The findings were then approved by an advisory board.
About 35 percent of the cases received red gavels, 38 percent of the cases received yellow gavels and 9 percent received green gavels.
“Green Gavels pulls back the heavy velvet curtains that have surrounded the Michigan Supreme Court for so long and allows citizens to look objectively at how each decision impacts our land, air and water,” said league Executive Director Lisa Wozniak in a news release.
YoungeDyke said the report is reflective of how judicial philosophy reflects on the environment and environmental protection, not personal opinions on issues.
A scoreboard was compiled for current justices, as the research team couldn’t accurately create complete records for every justice - as many of them were ruling on cases that came before their 30-year cap.
The Michigan League of Conservation Voters' environmental scoreboard for Michigan Supreme Court Justices as a part of their newest report, "Green Gavels." Red gavels signify a decision that had negative environmental implications, while green signifies decisions which had positive environmental impacts.
From the online report
Comments
Superior Twp voter
Tue, May 29, 2012 : 4:34 p.m.
Good. Keep up the good work!
Jim Van Buren
Tue, May 29, 2012 : 3:16 p.m.
According to your story, it appears to me that the justices are doing their job. The people that I voted for are supposed to judge cases before them on the basis of the facts, and not go off on an activist binge to satisfy the favorite causes of the liberal leftists.
lbechard
Sun, May 27, 2012 : 12:28 p.m.
This article, like almost all articles in Ann Arbor.com, is consistent with the paper's extreme liberal agenda. Liberals in general, and environmentalists in particular, always believe they have the moral high ground. In my view, the Michigan Supreme court tries to strike some balance between production of goods and services and environmental protection - and understands that good policy should try to have as much as possible of each. For that, their record of judgement on environmental issues should be applauded. Protect the economy as much as the environment.
janeqdoe
Sun, May 27, 2012 : 11:54 a.m.
The headline implies that the environment has been on trial, e.g. People of the State of Michigan vs.The Environment
DonBee
Sun, May 27, 2012 : 3:34 a.m.
To be fair, I would need to read the cases and the results. Every group has an AGENDA. Being rated against that agenda, does not mean that others will find that the agenda is valid for their views. I love the fact that AnnArbor.Com gave them free air space.
Drew YoungeDyke
Sat, May 26, 2012 : 11:32 p.m.
I think the author did a good job of noting the distinction made by Mick52 when she quoted me as saying "the report is reflective of how judicial philosophy reflects on the environment and environmental protection, not personal opinions on issues." As long as our justices are elected, though, it is important for people who care about the environment to know how the court affects it. If anyone has questions about why any particular case received the rating it did, please visit the website. Each case has an analysis explaining the reasoning behind the ratings, as well as a neutral summary written by U of M law students. We analyzed cases that had environmental and conservation impacts, so to the extent that there is a distinction between the two, we included both.
Stephen Landes
Sun, May 27, 2012 : 3:41 a.m.
I believe your analysis, focusing on the Court, is insufficient. What would be more useful is a root cause analysis -- WHY did the court rule as it did: constitutional conflict, vague language, some other issue? As it is your assessment puts the onus for "being green" on the court rather than on the legislative and executive branches for writing clear legislation and properly enforcing what is written. The question about the court should be, "did the court use sound constitutional reasoning to determine the legality of the questions brought before it"? The Court should not be legislating from the bench; making up for the deficiencies of the Legislature.
David Cahill
Sat, May 26, 2012 : 9:11 p.m.
I'm not convinced that a couple of the case decisions listed here are "anti-environment". How does upholding a ban on hunting hurt the environment? Ditto the eminent domain compensation ruling.
Will Warner
Sat, May 26, 2012 : 9:34 p.m.
David, I think you have it upon the difference between environmentalists and conservationists. I gather it is the later who compiled this list. Conservationists look upon the environment as habitat--for game primarily.
Roadman
Sat, May 26, 2012 : 7:46 p.m.
Justice Michael Cavanagh is the brother of the late Detroit Mayor Jerome Cavanagh and the uncle of Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Mark Cavanagh. Both have earned reputations among members of the Michigan bar as fair jurists with a commitment to integrity. Marilyn Kelly has had a record as nominally Republican but was a stern critic of the ultraconservative justices of the Supreme Court and often voted with the Democrats on the High Court. Mary Beth Kelly was nominated at the Michigan Republican Party State Convention in 2010 and took office in the GOP landslide that November. She is the former Chief Judge of the Wayne County Circuit Court. She is currently campaigning for Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Colleen O' Brien in her run for the GOP nomination in this November's election. O'Brien is competing with Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Jane Markey for the GOP nomination.
Dog Guy
Sat, May 26, 2012 : 7:18 p.m.
This has been an unpaid political message.
Billy Bob Schwartz
Sat, May 26, 2012 : 6:38 p.m.
I still can't believe we elect our judges in this state. Many ideas have come up over the years for taking these positions out of politics, but there has been no success in getting something done. Why should the law be different in, say, Washtenaw County than it is in, say, Livingston County? If I were to be tried for a crime, I would definitely choose my county carefully. If you are on the Michigan supreme Court, you need to get re-elected by a state-wide vote. That costs a lot of money. How do you think that works out?
ChrisW
Sat, May 26, 2012 : 11:10 p.m.
How is the appointment of judges any less political? Then we'd just get a ton of hack judges from the currently ruling party. At least now we get a mix.
1bit
Sat, May 26, 2012 : 7:09 p.m.
How exactly do you take politics out of this? Who better to elect those that will judge them, then those who will be subject to the rulings?
Mick52
Sat, May 26, 2012 : 6 p.m.
There is a point missing here that should be included I think for this article to be fair. The court rules on issues based on existing laws or how each situation is applied to Michigan's Constitution. A court should rule based on the law and not on each justice's opinion on the environment or any other issue. The law is created by the legislative branch, representatives of the people and enforced by the administrative branch. The duty of the court is to determine if such laws are in line with the state Constitution and existing laws and how law is applied to each case.
Terrin
Sat, May 26, 2012 : 6:30 p.m.
The problem with your reasoning is that if the law was clear the case wouldn't be in front of the Michigan Supreme Court to begin with. The Court often times can go either way and be in accords with the law because the law was poorly written.