Key Takeaways
- Michigan does not provide lawyers for discretionary Supreme Court appeals, leaving incarcerated individuals without counsel.
- Once a defendant loses their first appeal, the right to appointed counsel vanishes, creating significant barriers to justice.
- The Michigan Supreme Court is discretionary, requiring complex Applications for Leave to Appeal that most imprisoned individuals struggle to navigate on their own.
- Financial barriers, like costly transcripts, further impede incarcerated people from accessing the Supreme Court.
- Without legal representation, oversight of trial courts diminishes, allowing errors and misconduct to go unchecked.
QuickFAQs
No. Michigan provides appointed counsel for the first appeal of right, but not for discretionary appeals to the Michigan Supreme Court.
Without counsel, most incarcerated people cannot meet the Supreme Court’s procedural, financial, or constitutional briefing requirements.
Yes. The Court only hears cases through Applications for Leave to Appeal, which are complex and time-sensitive.
Filing requires transcripts and records that are often unaffordable for prisoners, with limited fee waivers under Michigan law.
When cases cannot reach the Supreme Court, trial courts and prosecutors face less oversight for errors and misconduct.
In Michigan, we like to talk about “Access to Justice” as if it’s a constant. We have the State Appellate Defender Office (SADO). We have the Michigan Assigned Appellate Counsel System (MAACS). We tell the public that if you are indigent and accused, the state will provide you with a champion; someone to be your voice in court.
But sadly, there is a “Terms and Conditions” clause they don’t mention: the help stops at the gates of the Michigan Supreme Court.
Once an incarcerated individual loses their “Appeal of Right” in the Court of Appeals, the state effectively cuts the cord. The right to appointed counsel, the very thing that keeps a case alive, simply vanishes.
The Discretionary Trap
The Michigan Supreme Court is a “discretionary” court. They don’t have to hear your case; you have to beg them to hear it through an Application for Leave to Appeal.
For a person behind bars, this isn’t just a legal hurdle; it’s an administrative nightmare designed for failure. Here is why the system is currently “working as intended” to keep the incarcerated silent:
1. The Right to Counsel Gap
Under MCR 6.4251, the state is obligated to provide an attorney for your first appeal. But once that court says “No,” you are on your own. Most prisoners are forced to navigate the incredibly complex MCR 7.3052 (Supreme Court Rules) pro se.
Imagine trying to write a high-level constitutional brief while your law library time is restricted to six hours a week (if the prison isn’t on lockdown) and you are being harassed by the very system you are trying to challenge.
2. The “Legal Writer” Myth
The MDOC touts its “Legal Writer Program,” but if we’re being honest, this is incarcerated individuals helping other incarcerated individuals, and there are unfortunately limitations. While many are incredibly knowledgable and dedicated, they are often restricted to helping with “initial” filings. They are not constitutional scholars, and they are frequently barred from assisting with the complex jurisdictional arguments required by the Supreme Court.
3. The Financial Paywall
Even if you can write the brief, can you afford the record? To file an application, you need transcripts and lower court records. For a prisoner making pennies an hour, paying 50 cents a page for a 300-page transcript is an impossible barrier. Under MCL 600.29633, the court actually forbids full fee waivers for incarcerated individuals in civil cases. Instead, they will take every last cent from the inmate account before they let you be heard.
Why This Matters for Accountability
When the state removes counsel at the Supreme Court level, they aren’t just saving money; they are insulating lower courts from oversight.
If a place like Barry County pulls a “white-out” on a motion, or a prosecutor engages in “unreasonable acts” to stifle a record, the Supreme Court is the final check; the court of “last resort.” By ensuring that 99% of incarcerated people can’t file a proper application, the system in turn ensures that those “sloppy” errors never get the sunlight they deserve.
The Systems Operator Take
As someone who has spent years turning opaque institutions into readable ones, I see this for exactly what it is: Administrative Redlining. We are telling the most vulnerable population in the state that the “Rule of Law” only applies as long as it’s convenient for the budget. When we stop providing lawyers for Supreme Court applications, we aren’t just ending a case; we are ending the hope of accountability.
In my own fight against the administrative gatekeeping in Barry County, I’ve seen how they use white-out and “ghost victims” to protect their records. But for the person sitting in a cell in Ionia or Jackson with no lawyer and a 56-day clock ticking down, that white-out might as well be a concrete wall.
Why This Matters
The Michigan Supreme Court is not just another rung on the appellate ladder. It is the final safeguard against systemic failure. When incarcerated people are cut off from counsel at this stage, errors do not simply go uncorrected. They are locked in.
This is how structural misconduct survives.
Trial courts that misapply sentencing guidelines, prosecutors who stretch facts to fit a narrative, and administrative actors who quietly manipulate records all benefit from a system that makes Supreme Court review practically unreachable. When the state withdraws counsel at the discretionary stage, it ensures that only the rarest cases, typically backed by private money or extraordinary outside intervention, ever reach meaningful oversight.
For incarcerated people, the consequences are devastating. A single missed rule under MCR 7.305, a missing transcript they cannot afford, or a constitutional argument they were never trained to make ends the case permanently. Not because the claim lacked merit, but because the system was designed to exhaust them before the finish line.
For the public, the cost is broader and more dangerous. Supreme Court review is where patterns are identified, where lower-court practices are corrected, and where the law is clarified for everyone. When most incarcerated litigants are effectively barred from that forum, misconduct does not stay isolated. It spreads, unexamined and unchecked.
This is not an accident. It is a policy choice. Michigan has decided that access to justice ends where it becomes inconvenient to fund. That choice protects budgets, not rights. It prioritizes administrative efficiency over constitutional accountability.
A justice system that abandons people at the point of highest review is not neutral. It is complicit. And until Michigan confronts the counsel gap at its Supreme Court, “access to justice” will remain a slogan, not a guarantee.
Relevant Michigan Laws and Rules
- MCR 6.425: Sentencing; Appointment of Appellate Counsel ↩︎
- MCR 7.305: Michigan Supreme Court Application for Leave to Appeal ↩︎
- MCL 600.2963: Commencement of civil action or filing appeal in civil action by prisoner; payment of filing fees and costs; claim of indigency; failure to pay fees and costs. ↩︎
