Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices 

# Order

June 4, 2010

137451

MICHIGAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 137451 COA: 280792 Ingham CC: 06-001537-AA SECRETARY OF STATE, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On November 5, 2009, the Court heard or al argument on the application for leave to appeal the August 28, 2008 judgment of the Court of Ap peals. On order of the Court, the application is again considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed the effect, if any, of Citizens United v Federal Election

Commission , 558 US ___; 130 S Ct 876; 175 L Ed 2d 753 (2010), on this case.

M ARKMAN , J. ( dissenting ).

I would not grant leave to appeal, and I therefore dissent. To the best of my recollection, this is the first occasion on which I have ever di ssented to an order to grant leave to appeal. The Court of Appeals issu ed its decision in this case on August 28, 2008, this Court entered an or der scheduling oral argument on the application on May 8, 2009, and oral arguments we re heard on November 5, 20 09. Now 6 1⁄2 months after hearing oral arguments on the ap plication, the majority grants leave to appeal. The only fig leaf of an excuse for do ing this is a request that th e parties should now brief the impact of Citizens United v Federa l Election Commission , 558 US ___; 130 S Ct 876; 175 L Ed 2d 753 (2010), a case decided by the United States Supreme Court more than four months ago and bearing no discer nible connection to the instant case.

Unlike Citizens United , the issues in this case have nothing to do with corporate free speech, nothing to do with labor union free speech, nothin g to do with the Federal Election Campaign Act, nothing to do w ith Federal Election Commission rules or regulations, and indeed nothing to do with campaign speech or the First Amendment. In short, it has nothing to do with anything involved in Citizens United . Instead, it involvesI, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 4, 2010

p0601 2

only whether § 57 of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act bars a school district from administering a payroll deduction plan for a politic al action committee.

Indeed, neither party itself has suggested that this case is affected in any way by
Citizens United

, nor sought any opport unity to file a supplemental brief. Yet suddenly it is necessary that this Court delay resolution of this case for what will be a minimum of seven or eight additiona l months, on t op of the six or seven mo nths that have already passed since oral argument. I am aware of no previous instance in which this Court has held arguments on an application, taken no ac tion in response to su ch arguments for more than six months, and then grante d leave to appeal late during th at term, ensuri ng that such case will not be further considered during that term and that a decision will not be forthcoming until, at the earliest, the beginni ng of the second calenda r year, 2011, after arguments were initially heard. This, with regard to a case that may affect the administrative processes of every scho ol district across this state.

This Court has been presented with substan tial briefs from each party. Each party has filed an original and supplemental brief, f our amicus briefs have been filed, and oral argument has taken place that lasted we ll beyond the normal time allotted for such argument. We have heard from the Secretar y of State, the Attorney General, the Michigan AFL-CIO, the Chamber of Comme rce, the Michigan State Employee’s Association, and the Mackinac Center, with a supplemental brief filed by the AFL-CIO and two supplemental briefs filed by the Cham ber of Commerce. Th is case involves a straightforward matter of statutory interpretation, and no justi ce has identified to any of the parties at oral argument, or at any later juncture, any aspect of this case that has not been thoroughly addressed.

To grant leave to appeal under these ci rcumstances constitutes an utter waste of judicial resources, imposes an altogether unnecessary expense u pon the parties, and unconscionably delays resolution of an importa nt dispute of statewide importance for no proper reason. What accounts fo r, and justifies, this delay? What is taking place here is an abuse of the judicial process, and the majo rity owes considerably more explanation for its actions than it has given.

C ORRIGAN AND Y OUNG

, JJ., join the statement of M ARKMAN

, J.