Arguments: March 10–12, 2026
Location: Lansing
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
The Michigan Supreme Court’s March 2026 argument docket is unusually dense, and unusually revealing. On paper, the cases span marijuana use, environmental law, treaty interpretation, criminal procedure, insurance, and municipal governance. In practice, they all orbit the same core question: how much discretion do courts and state actors have to restrict rights that the public believes are already settled?
Below is a clear, case-by-case breakdown of what the justices will be asked to decide, why it matters, and what ripple effects to watch for.
Quick Facts
A: March 10, 11, and 12, 2026. Daily start times are typically posted mid-February.
A: People v. Hess, which asks whether probationers can be banned from using recreational marijuana that is legal under Michigan law.
A: For Love of Water (FLOW) v. Michigan Public Service Commission, involving the Line 5 tunnel and public trust obligations.
A: Yes. The Little Traverse Bay Bands case revisits whether an 1855 treaty created a permanent federal reservation.
A: Each case tests whether courts will narrow voter-approved rights, treaty protections, or statutory safeguards through procedural or discretionary reasoning.
High-Profile Highlights
People v. Hess (No. 167895)
Issue: Marijuana use as a condition of probation
This case asks whether Michigan trial courts may prohibit probationers from using recreational marijuana solely because cannabis remains illegal under federal law, even though it is legal under Michigan’s constitution and statutes.
At stake is not just marijuana policy, but how probation conditions are used to quietly override voter-approved rights. If the Court upholds such bans, it effectively allows judges to impose federal prohibitions selectively on people under supervision, creating a two-tier system of legality.
Why this matters: Probation already operates as a shadow system of punishment. Allowing blanket bans on lawful conduct expands judicial control without legislative approval.
For Love of Water (FLOW) v. Michigan Public Service Commission (No. 168346)
Issue: Line 5 tunnel approval and public trust doctrine
This environmental heavyweight challenges whether the Michigan Public Service Commission properly applied the public trust doctrine when approving Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel project beneath the Great Lakes.
The Court will examine whether regulatory agencies must meaningfully weigh long-term environmental risk and public trust obligations, or whether procedural compliance alone is enough.
Why this matters: A narrow ruling could weaken Michigan’s public trust protections and signal judicial deference to infrastructure projects even when environmental risk is substantial.
Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians v. State of Michigan (Nos. 168335–168339)
Issue: Treaty interpretation and tribal sovereignty
This long-running dispute centers on whether the 1855 Treaty of Detroit created a permanent federal reservation for the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians.
The legal fight is deeply technical, but the consequences are not. The Court’s decision will shape how Michigan courts interpret treaties, particularly whether ambiguity is resolved in favor of tribal nations, as federal law traditionally requires.
Why this matters: Treaty erosion rarely happens in one dramatic ruling. It happens through incremental reinterpretation.
People of Michigan v Daren Donell Fenderson (No. 167391 )
Issue: A pretrial case involving serious charges where the dispute centers on interrogation and constitutional protections, including self-incrimination issues raised by the defense.
Why it matters: Michigan’s rules here shape police training and courtroom suppression practice. If the Court draws a brighter line around reengaging a suspect after rights are invoked, it changes interrogation playbooks statewide.
Remaining Cases
People v. James Ellis, Jr. (No. 166766)
Issue: Constitutionality of SORA’s “recapture” provision
The Court will consider whether Michigan’s Sex Offenders Registration Act can constitutionally re-impose registration requirements on individuals whose obligations had previously expired.
Why this matters: Retroactive punishment raises serious due process and ex post facto concerns. A ruling here will affect thousands of registrants statewide.
People v. Alexander Haupt (No. 167315)
Issue: Valid waiver of the right to counsel
This case examines whether a defendant truly and knowingly waived their right to counsel before representing themselves.
Why this matters: Courts often treat waiver colloquies as formalities. The decision could clarify how rigorously judges must protect the right to counsel before allowing self-representation.
Canty v. Mason (No. 167772)
Issue: No-Fault insurance and mitigation of damages
The question here is whether an injured person must first use Medicare or other benefits to reduce costs before pursuing full recovery in a no-fault auto insurance claim.
Why this matters: The ruling could shift financial burden from insurers to federal programs and injured individuals.
Exclusive Capital Partners v. City of Royal Oak (No. 168243)
Issue: Marijuana licensing and Open Meetings Act compliance
This dispute challenges how Royal Oak awarded marijuana business licenses and whether city officials violated Michigan’s Open Meetings Act during the process.
Why this matters: Municipal marijuana licensing has become fertile ground for opaque decision-making. The case tests whether transparency laws have teeth.
Zezula v Brown (No. 168483)
Issue: A property-damage dispute arising from underground work that punctured a sewage line, leading to a backup into the plaintiff’s home, with appellate questions about responsibility among neighbors, contractors, and a township.
Why it matters: Infrastructure failures are rarely “one actor, one mistake.” The Court’s approach to allocation of liability here can affect how homeowners, contractors, and municipalities assess risk and coverage in utility-adjacent damage cases.
Canty v Mason (No. 167772)
Issue: A No-Fault dispute asking whether an injured person has a duty to mitigate damages by using Medicare rather than pursuing full medical costs through litigation.
Why it matters: This is a pressure-point case for how costs shift between private defendants, insurers, and federal benefits. The Court’s answer affects settlement leverage and how medical bills are framed in auto-injury litigation.
Why This Session Matters
Taken together, this docket reflects a pattern that has become increasingly familiar: rights recognized in theory, narrowed in application.
Whether it is probation conditions limiting lawful conduct, agencies approving risky infrastructure, or courts re-interpreting treaties and statutes, the March 2026 session will show how willing the Michigan Supreme Court is to act as a guardrail or a gatekeeper.
What to Watch Next
- Argument dates: March 10–12, 2026
- Daily schedules expected mid-February
- Opinions likely issued later in 2026
Clutch Justice will be tracking oral arguments, questioning patterns, and eventual opinions for what they signal about power, discretion, and accountability in Michigan’s highest court.
Sources & References
- Michigan Supreme Court Docket and Case Listings
- Michigan Constitution
- Public Trust Doctrine jurisprudence
- Federal Indian law treaty interpretation principles
- Michigan Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA)
