Legal News Roundup, May 17, 2026: MSC Deliberates. SCOTUS on Mifepristone. Kostovski Disbarred.

MSC — The Presentment Fight Is the Structural Story of the Term

The Michigan Supreme Court heard oral arguments on May 6 in a case that tests whether one branch of government can refuse to complete a constitutional process initiated by another. The question before the Court: does the House Speaker have an enforceable constitutional duty to present bills passed by a prior Legislature to the governor?

The backstory is not complicated. The 102nd Legislature — which had a Democratic House majority — passed nine bills before Republicans took control of the chamber in January 2025. Speaker Matt Hall declined to present those bills to Governor Whitmer, taking the position that the Michigan Constitution’s presentment clause describes a condition for a bill becoming law, not an affirmative, judicially enforceable duty. The Court of Appeals disagreed and ordered the House to comply. Hall appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.

The stakes are structural, not partisan. If the MSC affirms the Court of Appeals, it establishes that presentment is an enforceable constitutional duty and that the courts can compel compliance. If the MSC rules for the House, it establishes that the judiciary cannot compel a co-equal branch to complete a legislative process — and that a single speaker can, in practice, nullify legislation passed by a prior majority by simply refusing to act. That second outcome has implications that outlast any particular speaker or political configuration.

Federal — Two Cases at SCOTUS Worth Watching

The broader context: Justice Kagan’s dissent in Callais described the ruling as “the latest chapter in the majority’s now-completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act.” Whether she is right about the completeness of that demolition will become clearer as the Virginia case and others in its wake reach the Court.

Michigan Court of Appeals — May Session

The COA’s May 2026 session call is active, with argument panels sitting at Cadillac Place in Detroit Tuesday and Wednesday this week. Tuesday’s Panel 3 docket includes People v. Hollon and People v. Moran. Wednesday covers People v. Huston, People v. Sterling, and People v. Sexton. Parties with active matters in the May session should confirm argument times and check all filings through MiFile.

The Michigan Supreme Court has a public administrative hearing scheduled for May 20 at the Hall of Justice in Lansing. Attorneys or members of the public with standing interests in the agenda items should have submitted registration by May 18.

Attorney Discipline — Kostovski Disbarment, Case No. 25-097-GA

The Kostovski matter is a consent order, meaning Kostovski and the Grievance Administrator stipulated to the factual allegations and the discipline. Tri-County Hearing Panel #102 accepted the stipulation. The findings cover two client matters and a failure to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation.

The conduct pattern documented here runs across several MRPC failure categories that recur in escalated discipline cases: failure to communicate under 1.4, failure to protect client interests on termination under 1.16(d), and the layered violations under 8.4. The MCR 9.119 violations — practicing, communicating with clients, and holding herself out as an attorney while suspended — are the category of conduct that tends to convert what might otherwise be a suspension into a disbarment. The panel’s findings confirm that pattern here.

The restitution order of $7,000 applies to the two client matters identified in the formal complaint. Costs of $774.02 were separately assessed. The condition referenced in the notice title (“With Condition”) is identified in the stipulation but not detailed in the public notice.