Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette attempts to contradict his own office with last-minute filing of contrary brief; Federal Judge rejects Schuette document, rebukes the A.G. for contradicting his own office and acting out of personal interest
Editorial disclosure: Rick Thompson is a Flint native and area resident. He is also on the Board of Directors of MILegalize2018, which is mentioned in this article.
by Rick Thompson/January 25,2017
LANSING– The Attorney General for the state of Michigan, Bill Schuette, tried to pull a fast one in federal court over a case involving water distribution to residents of Flint. The judge wasn’t having any of it, and his angry comments to the A.G. about the “ethical conflict” created by Schuette’s action amounts to an epic smackdown of the presumptive Republican nominee for Governor- and provide some of the most quotable phrases of the new year.
A coalition consisting of the Michigan ACLU, Flint resident Melissa Mays, religious groups and others filed suit in federal court against the state regarding delivery of water to citizens affected by the Flint water crisis. The state is represented in federal court by the office of the Michigan Attorney General.
The coalition won a decision from U.S. District Judge David Lawson which requires bottled water to be delivered to the door of Flint residents until such a time as the Department of Environmental Quality determines that the water flowing from their household faucets is safe to use and drink. The state’s position, and the position of Gov. Snyder, is that the program is too costly and an on-demand service is available already to residents via a telephone call.
The state has appealed the decision by Judge Lawson- twice- and has lost both times. Then, suddenly on January 17, Schuette submitted a brief stating he believed that the DEQ is incapable of determining the safety of the water. “MDEQ is not behaving as an impartial regulatory agency in this action,” Schuette wrote.
His amicus submission was essentially a position of agreement with the ACLU/Mays coalition in advocating for state-controlled deliveries of water to residents- the exact opposite of the position his “deputies and assistants” had been fighting for on behalf of the state- in opposition to the wishes of the Governor.
The Detroit Free Press’ Paul Egan reported that, on January 23rd, U.S. District Judge David Lawson had refused to allow Schuette to file that amicus brief in the case; the judge also took Schuette to task for improper court procedure, for contradicting his own office, for irreparably harming the process of justice and “superficial posturing.”
The procedural violation came a s a result of presumptive action. The Attorney General applied for leave to file his amicus but then, according to Lawson’s order, the A.G. violated court rules and added his pending brief to the Court docket before the Judge had approved its inclusion.
These are quotes from the Judge Lawson order denying the Schuette amicus brief, as reported by the Free Press:
- “Superficial posturing does not contribute to the search for an equitable solution.”
- Schuette’s brief: “potentially complicating adjudication of the serious legal questions before the court, without adding anything of substance.”
- An “ethical conflict” is created when the A.G. advances an argument “diametrically opposed to that advanced by his other deputies and assistants.”
- If the Judge granted Schuette’s request it “would raise the specter of disqualification of his entire office from participating on behalf of any party in the case.”
- “The state defendants may have reason to doubt the loyalty they are to expect from their own attorneys.”
- Judge Lawson, on Schuette’s motive for filing a brief that contradicts the work of his own agents: “He has, of course, no official stake in the matter (except, of course, arising from his duty to represent the state defendants), although perhaps he has a personal one… Either way, there is an obvious conflict, and if it’s the latter, the conflict is more egregious, as he means to take a position adverse to his own clients in the same lawsuit while advancing his own, personal opinion.”
- Disqualifying the Michigan A.G. from representing their current clients “would be disruptive and cause substantial delay.”
- On Schuette’s next move: “Of course, if the attorney general wants to weight in with a sensible resolution, he has the authority to do so.”
The Attorney General has been discussed as the most likely candidate to represent the Republican party during the 2018 election in which the successor to current and embattled Michigan Governor Rick Snyder will be chosen. Schuette has not officially declared his candidacy. Democrat Gretchen Whitmer has declared herself a candidate for the office and has begun her fundraising campaign.
In 2008, while on the Michigan Court of Appeals, then-Judge Schuette was one of the strongest opponents of medical marijuana in the state. The 2018 election is likely to feature a marijuana legalization proposal on the ballot, placed there via a petition drive, as in-state organization MILegalize2018 is working in concert with other groups toward that end.
Read the Detroit Free Press article to get the full scope of the Judge’s response, and the reply offered by the Attorney General. It can be found at the link below.
Oh my goodness! an amazing article dude. Thanks