The Michigan Supreme Court will hear eight cases over two days — December 10 and 11, 2025 — at the Michigan Hall of Justice in Lansing. Arguments begin at 9:30 a.m. each day and will stream live on the MSC website. The docket covers major questions involving sexual assault and parental rights, landlord safety duties, Miranda waivers, retroactivity of criminal rulings, insurance rescission, whistleblower protections, and drug-crime sentencing.
Below is a full breakdown of every case the justices will consider.
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2025
1. Blackman v. Millward – Teacher Sexual Assault, Parentage, and the Limits of the Revocation of Parentage Act
Calhoun County
A former high-school teacher convicted of sexually assaulting a 16-year-old student is challenging rulings that stripped him of all parental rights to the child she later gave birth to in 2018. After his conviction for third-degree CSC and witness intimidation, he sought parenting time from prison. The survivor moved to revoke the Acknowledgment of Parentage (AOP) under Michigan’s Revocation of Parentage Act, arguing the conception resulted from nonconsensual sexual penetration.
The trial court revoked his parental rights without taking testimony. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that:
• The judge should have held a full evidentiary hearing on whether the assault caused the pregnancy.
• The time-limit in MCL 722.1437(1) does not apply to revocations under MCL 722.1445(2).
The Supreme Court will decide (1) whether a time-bar applies, and (2) what procedures trial courts must follow before revoking paternity in assault-related pregnancies.
2. Bowerman v. Red Oak Management – Landlord Duties and Contractor Negligence in Apartment-Complex Injury
Montcalm County
A tenant fractured her ankle after stepping into a three-inch-deep trench left in front of a new concrete dumpster slab. The contractor assumed another company would fill the trench within days — but it never happened.
The Court will decide whether:
• The contractor owed and breached a duty of care.
• The property manager violated MCL 554.139(1)(a), which requires landlords to keep common areas fit for their intended use.
The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal in a 2-1 decision. The justices will determine whether factual disputes should have gone to a jury.
3. People v. Soriano – LSD Intoxication, Miranda Rights, and a Hospital-Bed Confession
Grand Traverse County
After using LSD, the defendant allegedly attempted to sexually assault his friend, fled, and was found hours later in a disoriented state. At the hospital, he made incriminating statements after police read him his Miranda rights.
The Supreme Court will examine:
• Whether his intoxication made his Miranda waiver invalid.
• Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying suppression.
• Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present expert testimony on LSD impairment.
A divided Court of Appeals panel upheld the conviction.
4. People v. Langston – The Future of Michigan’s Felony-Murder Rule for Pre-1980 Cases
Van Buren County
This case has massive stakes for Michigan inmates convicted before the 1980 landmark ruling People v. Aaron, which required proof of malice in felony-murder cases.
The defendant was convicted in 1976 and sentenced to life without parole, even though the jury was not required to find malice. He argues:
• Aaron was wrongly applied prospectively only.
• His LWOP sentence is unconstitutional without a malice finding.
• His appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising these claims.
The Court will address whether Aaron should apply retroactively, whether pre-1980 mandatory LWOP sentences violate the Michigan or U.S. constitutions, and what remedies should exist if such sentences are deemed invalid.
This ruling could impact numerous long-standing felony-murder convictions.
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2025
5. People v. Shaver – Retroactivity of the 2021 SORA Ruling
Tuscola County
After pleading guilty in 2016 to failing to update his sex-offender registry information, the defendant later argued his conviction must be overturned under People v. Betts (2021), which held the 2011 SORA amendments were unconstitutional ex post facto punishment.
The Supreme Court must decide whether Betts applies only to active or pending cases, or whether individuals whose cases were long resolved may seek relief.
6. Zink v. Genesee Intermediate School District – Whistleblower Retaliation, Constructive Discharge, and the 90-Day Deadline
Genesee County
A special-education teacher reported what she believed were violations of district procedures after a violent student was returned to her classroom without a safety plan. She alleges administrators retaliated until she was forced to resign.
Michigan’s Whistleblower Protection Act requires claims to be filed within 90 days of an adverse employment action. The dispute is whether a constructive discharge qualifies as that adverse action.
The Supreme Court will reconsider earlier rulings (Joliet and Magee), determine whether they were correctly decided, and decide how the WPA’s limitations window should apply.
7. People v. Walker – Drug Trafficking Sentencing Points Based on Dismissed Conduct
Isabella County
Police found meth, cocaine, fentanyl, scales, baggies, and cash. The defendant ultimately pleaded guilty only to meth possession, with other trafficking charges dismissed.
At sentencing, the judge assessed five points under OV 15 for trafficking indicators — despite the trafficking charges being dismissed in the plea deal.
The Court will decide whether:
• Sentencing judges may rely on conduct tied to dismissed charges, or
• Points must be based solely on the sentencing offense.
This case could reshape how plea bargains affect sentencing exposure statewide.
8. Sherman v. Progressive – Insurance Rescission, Misrepresentation, and Review Standards
Washtenaw County
Progressive rescinded the plaintiff’s auto policy after a crash, claiming she misrepresented where her cars were garaged and who lived with her — factors that would change the premium. The trial court rejected rescission and simply reformed the policy. The Court of Appeals reversed.
The Supreme Court will answer:
• What standard of review applies when appellate courts examine a trial judge’s equitable findings.
• Whether the Court of Appeals should have sent the case back for a new balancing of equities.
This ruling could directly affect how insurers handle alleged misrepresentations and how much deference trial judges receive in rescission disputes.
Discuss This On Our Facebook Page:
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/16ZgDNcvdo/