The Michigan Supreme Court has scheduled a series of high-impact cases for its January 2026 argument session, touching on criminal procedure, sentencing, parental rights, venue law, medical malpractice, and lawsuits against public institutions.
Below is a case-by-case breakdown of the matters the Court will hear, along with what each dispute means for Michigan law going forward.
DHHS v NRK RX, Inc. and Raad Kouza
At issue in this case is where the State of Michigan may file suit when seeking to recover Medicaid funds.
The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services alleges the defendants improperly billed Medicaid more than $500,000 for prescription drugs that were not purchased from authorized wholesalers. After an administrative ruling in its favor, DHHS filed a civil lawsuit in Ingham County seeking repayment.
The defendants successfully moved to transfer the case to Oakland County, arguing that venue was improper in Ingham County under Michigan’s general venue statutes. The Supreme Court will now decide how several venue laws interact when a state department brings a civil action, and whether special venue statutes apply only when the State or Attorney General is the named plaintiff.
The ruling will determine how much leverage state agencies have to choose their forum, a decision that could affect future enforcement actions across Michigan.
People v Jayneel Ravindra Jade
This case centers on entrapment and undercover online sex-crime investigations.
Law enforcement officers posted an advertisement on an adult escort website and communicated with the defendant through text messages. During the exchange, the undercover decoy stated she was 15 years old. The defendant expressed hesitation, conducted a reverse phone lookup, and insisted the person be at least 16. Despite that, he later agreed to meet and was arrested.
The defendant pleaded guilty after his entrapment motion was denied. The Supreme Court will now consider whether Michigan courts are applying the correct standard of review for entrapment, and whether police conduct must be evaluated beyond simply providing an “opportunity” to commit a crime.
The decision could significantly affect how aggressive online sting operations may be and how courts evaluate a defendant’s reluctance or readiness to offend.
Here’s the summary by the Michigan Supreme Court:
“The Van Buren County Sheriff’s Department and the Genesee County Sheriff’s department, as part of an undercover operation, posted an advertisement on an adult escort website called Skip the Games. The advertisement posted photographs of a female with a stated age of 20, and listed various sexual acts that the female was offering for sale. The defendant contacted the phone number in the advertisement and began texting an undercover decoy. During the text messaging, the decoy asked him if he was okay with “younger chicks,” eventually stating that she was 15 years old. The defendant responded that she had to be 16. He also conducted a reverse look-up to determine the owner of the phone that he was texting and the search showed a single 34-year-old woman as the owner of the phone. After he insisted that the woman had to be 16, the decoy responded that she was 15 years old. The defendant proposed going out to eat with her. In response, the decoy again brought up exchanging sex for money. The defendant then had an unrecorded phone conversation with the decoy. Ultimately, he agreed to meet the decoy at a hotel. When he arrived, he was arrested and charged with child sexually abusive activity, accosting a child for immoral purposes, and two corresponding counts of using a computer to commit a crime. He filed a motion to dismiss the charges based on entrapment, which the trial court denied. Following the denial of his motion to dismiss, the defendant pleaded guilty to accosting a child for immoral purposes in exchange for dismissal of the remaining charges. The trial court sentenced him to seven days’ time served. After granting the defendant’s application for leave to appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss in a published opinion. The Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal to address whether the Court of Appeals erred by: (1) concluding that the standard of review for entrapment rulings requires consideration of whether the ultimate determination of entrapment is clearly erroneous as provided in People v Johnson, 466 Mich 491, 497 (2002), as opposed to a standard involving a conclusion or legal determination that is reviewed de novo, see People v Fyda, 288 Mich App 446, 456 (2010); (2) relying on and applying the legal standard that police do not engage in entrapment by merely presenting a defendant with an opportunity to commit the crime with which he was charged without considering the defendant’s readiness and willingness to commit the charged crime, as stated in People v Jamieson, 436 Mich 61, 68 (1990); and (3) affirming the trial court’s determination that the defendant was not entrapped, see Johnson, 466 Mich at 498.”
People v David Henry Serges
This case raises fundamental questions about search-and-seizure rights for jail inmates.
After the defendant was arrested on misdemeanor warrants, police seized his clothing while he was in jail and sent it for forensic testing without a warrant or consent. DNA evidence later linked the defendant to a homicide, leading to a first-degree murder conviction.
The Supreme Court will decide whether the defendant’s clothing was unlawfully seized or tested under the Fourth Amendment and the Michigan Constitution, and whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the evidence.
The ruling could redefine privacy expectations for detained individuals and place new limits on warrantless forensic testing.
People v Mario Cortize Jackson
This sentencing case asks whether a defendant may receive enhanced sentencing points for a death he was not charged with causing.
The defendant was convicted of assault with intent to do great bodily harm for attacking a woman. After the assault concluded, a gunfight occurred involving the victim’s relatives, resulting in a fatality. Prosecutors did not charge the defendant in connection with the shooting.
Despite that, the trial court assessed 100 points under Offense Variable 3, which applies when a death results from the commission of a crime. The Court of Appeals reversed.
The Supreme Court will determine whether the deceased individual qualifies as a “victim” under sentencing guidelines and whether the defendant’s conduct was a factual cause of the death. The outcome will have wide implications for sentencing fairness and proportionality.
Smith v Beaumont Health, Tri County Orthopedics, and Jack D. Lennox, D.O.
This medical-malpractice dispute focuses on expert-witness deadlines and trial court discretion.
After the plaintiff’s original medical expert became unavailable, the trial court refused to allow a replacement expert and later dismissed the case. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the trial court failed to consider required factors before denying the amendment.
The Supreme Court will decide whether trial courts must explicitly weigh those factors under existing precedent and court rules before striking expert witnesses.
The ruling will affect how rigidly courts enforce scheduling orders in malpractice litigation and whether cases may be dismissed on procedural grounds alone.
Blackman v Millward
This emotionally charged case involves parental rights following sexual assault.
The defendant, a former high school teacher, engaged in a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old student and later pleaded guilty to criminal sexual conduct. A child was born from the relationship, and the parties signed an acknowledgment of parentage.
Years later, the mother sought to revoke the acknowledgment under Michigan’s Revocation of Parentage Act. The trial court revoked the father’s parental rights without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Court of Appeals reversed.
The Supreme Court will decide whether time limitations apply to such revocations and whether trial courts must conduct fact-finding hearings to determine whether a child was conceived through nonconsensual sexual penetration.
The decision will shape survivor protections, parental rights, and family-law procedure statewide.
Here’s the description from the Michigan Supreme Court:
“The defendant was a high school teacher who had a sexual relationship with the plaintiff when she was sixteen years old and one of his students. After the relationship was discovered, the defendant resigned from his teaching position in February 2018. The relationship continued, and on December 15, 2018, the plaintiff gave birth to a child. The parties executed an acknowledgement of parentage (AOP) after the child was born. The defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct for incidents that took place in 2017, as well as one count of witness intimidation for trying to convince the plaintiff to lie to police about their relationship. He was sentenced to 5.5 to 15 years in prison, with an earliest release date of November 12, 2025. In March 2023, the defendant filed a motion to establish parenting time. In response, the plaintiff sought to revoke the AOP under the Revocation of Parentage Act, MCL 722.1431 et seq., which provides remedies for a survivor of sexual assault who becomes pregnant by, and thereafter is raising the child of, her assailant. Following a hearing at which no evidence was taken, the trial court revoked the AOP, declared that the defendant had no parental rights to the child, allowed the plaintiff to amend the child’s birth certificate to reflect the revocation, declared any orders recognizing the defendant as the child’s father to be void, and cancelled an evidentiary hearing on the defendant’s motion for parenting time. The Court of Appeals, in a published opinion, vacated the trial court’s order and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the child’s conception was the result of nonconsensual sexual penetration. The Court of Appeals also held that the three-year limitations period set forth in MCL 722.1437(1) does not apply to the plaintiff’s claim to revoke the AOP under MCL 722.1445(2). The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1) whether an action to revoke an acknowledgement of parentage based upon a claim that the child was conceived as a result of nonconsensual sexual penetration, MCL 722.1445(2), is subject to the limitations period set forth in MCL 722.1437(1); and (2) whether the Calhoun Circuit Court erred by refusing to conduct a fact-finding hearing to determine whether the child was conceived as a result of nonconsensual sexual penetration and, if so, the requirements of such a hearing. See MCL 722.1445(2).”
McCormick v Michigan State University
This case examines fraudulent concealment and notice deadlines in lawsuits against the State.
Former law professors sued Michigan State University, alleging breach of contract and fraudulent concealment related to employment agreements following a merger. The dispute centers on whether the fraudulent-concealment statute tolls strict notice requirements under the Court of Claims Act.
The Supreme Court will determine when the plaintiffs’ claims accrued and whether concealment occurring before an injury can toll statutory deadlines.
The ruling could either tighten or expand the window for suing state entities, with implications for future claims against public universities and agencies.