Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

Order 

July 2, 2010 

140297 & (66) 

140299 

In re INVESTIGATIVE SUBPOENAS. 

_________________________________________ 

GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY PROSECUTOR, 

Petitioner-Appellee, 

v SC: 140297 

 COA: 284993 

MEIJER, INC., Grand Traverse CC: 

 Respondent-Appellee, 08-026516-PZ 

and 

DICKINSON WRIGHT EMPLOYEES, 

Respondents-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

In re INVESTIGATIVE SUBPOENAS. 

_________________________________________ 

GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY PROSECUTOR, 

Petitioner-Appellee, 

v SC: 140299 

 COA: 284993 

MEIJER, INC., Grand Traverse CC: 

 Respondent-Appellant, 08-026516-PZ 

and 

DICKINSON WRIGHT EMPLOYEES, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

 By order of April 16, 2010 the parties were directed to file supplemental briefs. 

On order of the Court, the briefs having been received, the applications for leave to 

appeal the November 19, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals are again considered, 

and they are GRANTED. The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed 

whether a county prosecutor has the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of 

the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, MCL 169.201 et seq. 
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

July 2, 2010 

d0629 

 

2

 Persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this 

case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae. 

 MARKMAN, J. (concurring). 

 I concur in the order granting leave to appeal. I write separately to request that the 

parties carefully address two threshold questions of justiciability. Here, the prosecutor 

originally sought authorization under MCL 767A.2(1) to issue subpoenas to investigate 

an alleged felony. Specifically, the prosecutor was investigating a violation of the 

Michigan Campaign Finance Act (MCFA), under MCL 169.254, which prohibits 

corporations and their agents from making election campaign contributions. In the 

meantime, the United States Supreme Court issued its ruling in Citizens United v Federal 

Election Comm’n, 558 US ___; 130 S Ct 876, 913 (2010), in which it held that “the 

Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate 

identity.” Thus, Citizens United introduces the issue whether a violation under MCL 

169.254 may be prosecuted at all and, as a result, whether the underlying issue in this 

case—the prosecutor’s authority to prosecute felony violations of the MCFA—is moot. 

Moreover, the Court of Appeals held that a prosecutor has the authority to criminally 

enforce other provisions of the MCFA which were not affected by Citizens United. The 

prosecutor has indicated that he now intends to pursue criminal misdemeanor violations 

of the MCFA. However, at least to this point, this case has involved an alleged felony 

and the prosecutor’s authority to investigate it; MCL 767A.2(1) does not authorize the 

issuance of subpoenas to investigate alleged misdemeanors. Therefore, the issue also 

arises whether the issue of a prosecutor’s authority to investigate misdemeanor violations 

under the MCFA is ripe. Thus, I respectfully request that the parties address: (1) whether 

the issue regarding a prosecutor’s authority to prosecute felonies under MCL 169.254 is 

moot; and (2) whether the issue regarding a prosecutor’s authority to prosecute 

misdemeanors under the MCFA is ripe. 

 CAVANAGH, J. (dissenting). 

 I would deny the application for leave to appeal as I concur with the Court of 

Appeals statement that “[t]he statutory language neither expressly creates nor inherently 

implies any restriction applicable to the prosecutor’s power to investigate criminal 

violations provided for by the MCFA.” In re Investigative Subpoenas, 286 Mich App 

201, 217; 779 NW2d 277 (2009).