Michigan’s attorney general is co-leading a letter to Congress asking it to pass a law to keep Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers from hiding their identity while in the field.

ICE officers have received scrutiny in recent months for wearing plainclothes and masks and allegedly not identifying themselves as law enforcement during raids.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said that’s alarming.

“Often times is that ICE is not even coordinating with local or county law enforcement. So, when people have a question, say, ‘Oh my God, are these really ICE officers or not? Are they out here executing search warrants or conducting operations?’ Locals don’t even know about it,” she said.

Nessel said cases of people impersonating ICE officers to commit crimes have accompanied agents covering their faces.

The Trump administration has ramped up immigration enforcement as it reportedly set a 3,000 arrests per day target.

A handful of local law enforcement agencies in Michigan have already signed agreements to help ICE, according to Department of Homeland Security data. Other agencies not listed as having a 287(g) agreement, like Michigan State Police, may still be assisting ICE in the field.

Nessel said the masked tactics could make it difficult for Michigan law enforcement agencies working alongside their federal counterparts, noting Michigan law enforcement generally isn’t allowed to cover their faces while on duty.

“My agents? You know, we execute search warrants all the time. But they’re not masked when they do it and they’re absolutely identified as being special agents of the Department of the Attorney General. We should expect no less from ICE or any other federal agency,” Nessel said.

Despite the concerns, it’s unlikely the letter signed by 21 state attorneys general will spur any action by the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress.

Earlier this month, lawmakers approved a spending bill that included funding increases for a ramp up in immigration enforcement and hiring of more staff.

ICE has not responded to a request for a comment.

The industry for materials key to American manufacturing could receive extra government support under proposed legislation from a Michigan congresswoman.

The bill, called the “Unearth America’s Future Act,” would create new federal loans, tax credits, and programs to spur the domestic production and refining of critical minerals like copper, magnesium and aluminum.

“What this bill is, is focused on public-private partnerships, supply chain opportunities, as well as recyclability, which is something that’s gaining a lot of traction in the critical materials space right now,” U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Michigan) said about her pending legislation.

Stevens estimates her plan would invest around $10 billion in the industry. It would cover loans, tax credits, partnerships and the creation of a new national center to oversee research and development.

The policy proposal is a response to concerns about China’s dominance in the market for precious metals, especially those used in goods like smart phones or vehicle batteries.

Stevens said that makes both the country’s and Michigan’s current situations untenable.

“Leaving Michigan’s entire manufacturing base on the hook for materials coming from minerals that are refined in China, that’s a risk. And that’s not working,” she said.

The Trump administration has already issued executive orders aimed at increasing the country’s mining capacity, despite environmental concerns. Separately, existing bipartisan bills in Congress are also trying to address that issue.

Stevens, however, said her way of addressing the matter is by taking a similar approach to how the bipartisan CHIPS Act addressed a shortage of American semiconductor chip makers: increasing the capacity for processing and refining already-mined minerals.

“This will increase our resilience here in the United States of America, but it will also increase our domestic production capabilities, which means lowering costs, lowering costs, lowering costs — we need to lower costs, and that’s what this bill’s going to be about as well. And job creation,” Stevens said.

Michigan lawmakers left the state capitol Tuesday night again without passing a new state budget for K-12 schools.

Tuesday was the statutory deadline for passing an entire state budget. But lawmakers likely won’t be back for a couple of weeks.

That means school districts have started a new fiscal year without knowing how much money they’ll be getting from the state. 

The Democratic-controlled Senate adjourned first, throwing in the towel in the late afternoon. Leadership said the Senate and the Republican-led House were still worlds apart in their negotiations.

Speaking to reporters, Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks (D-Grand Rapids) said she’d like schools to have more reassurance when it comes to their funding.

“I think we’re in a position where, when we can give them more certainty, sooner is better, and we will do everything we can to get there,” Brinks said before adding, “There’s not much more that they can learn this week. I think we’re continuing to hear from school leaders in our community that the want a better budget — not a fast budget — so that is our guiding principle at this point.”

There are several differences not only between each chamber’s proposals, but how they’re approaching the talks themselves.

The Senate has been adamant about wanting a full budget passed at the same time. House leadership has shut down that idea, instead arguing that a schools budget and a separate roads funding plan that could have implications for school money should go first.

Beyond that, the House schools proposal would raise the base-level funding for schools but cancel out directed spending on items like free school meals or mental health support. House Republicans say it would give districts more flexibility on how they spend their money.

The Senate also proposes more per-student funding but Senate Democrats want that directed spending maintained.

House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Twp) said he still hoped the House could pass a new proposal with bipartisan support after the Senate walked.

Hall said, as a way to pressure the Senate, he offered House Democrats restored funding for school meals and rural school transportation to gain their votes. He called that deal a win-win, and said a similar deal was on the table with the Senate.

“We win because we keep pressure on to get a school budget done quickly and also to get roads done and they win because they can establish relevancy in the budget process. I thought that was a critical opportunity for them and I think they missed that opportunity,” Hall said.

That plan never came to fruition. After session Tuesday, House Democrats said they didn’t feel Hall was working in good faith.

No budget means schools still don’t know how much money they’ll get for things like teachers, resource officers, or free meals for students.

The U.S. Supreme Court could decide if a case involving the Line 5 oil pipeline stays in Michigan court or goes back before federal judges.

The case began in 2019 when Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel sued in state court to partially shut down Line 5. Nessel cited three state laws to make an environmental case for stopping the project.

It then got moved to federal court in 2021 at the request of Enbridge, the Canadian company that operates the pipeline. That request came much later than a 30-day window to do so, partly because Enbridge says it was waiting on the result of a similar lawsuit from Michigan’s governor.

A lower federal court granted an exception to the timeline. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, didn’t buy that argument and sent the case back to the 30th Circuit Court in Ingham County where a hearing was held in January.

The Supreme Court, on Enbridge’s appeal, will decide whether there are exceptions to the 30-day period to remove a case to federal court.

Enbridge argues, while the Sixth Circuit took a narrow view of that time frame, other appellate courts have allowed exceptions. It believes the case belongs in federal court because the matter butts up against international treaty law and some federal laws as well.

In a statement, Enbridge spokesperson Ryan Duffy said the company is “encouraged” by the Supreme Court decision Monday to take up the case.

“The District Court cited the important federal issues in this case, including U.S.-Canada Treaty issues, and the fact that litigation of these issues was already pending in another case in federal court. 

However, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, deciding that district courts have no authority to give exceptions to the 30-day time limit.

The Sixth Circuit’s remand decision is in conflict with decisions from two other federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, which both held that there can be exceptions to the 30-day limit. The Supreme Court review will resolve this conflict in the courts of appeals,” Duffy said in an email.

Meanwhile, the Attorney General’s office is maintaining its position.

“The Department’s lawsuit is based on state claims and law, and it belongs before a Michigan court.  We remain undeterred in our commitment to protect the Great Lakes, especially from the devastating catastrophe a potential Line 5 rupture would wreak upon all of Michigan,” a written statement from AG spokesperson Kimberly Bush said.

If the case goes back to federal court, the proceedings that have happened in state court may be moot. Meanwhile, the legal fight between Enbridge and the governor is already playing out in federal court.

All this is happening as Enbridge tries to move forward with a project to build a tunnel around a replacement section of the Line 5 pipeline that runs through the Straits of Mackinac. That project is currently in the permitting process.

Enbridge says the tunnel would make the pipeline safer by protecting it from anchor strikes. Environmental groups are fighting it, saying it could potentially rupture and dump massive amounts of oil into the Great Lakes.

Michigan lawmakers went home without passing a new budget for K-12 schools Thursday night. That’s despite, both meeting for hours and a statutory July 1 deadline for getting an entire state budget done.

It appears part of the holdup is how to handle earmarks for programs like free school lunches or mental health services. The Democratic-led Senate wants them maintained while the Republican-controlled House of Representatives wants to cut them in favor of giving districts more money per student.

House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Twp) is also trying to get a road funding plan passed alongside the school budget.

Hall spoke to reporters Thursday night after spending hours negotiating with Senate leadership, the governor, and their teams. He said the leaders were leaving with “a roadmap” that will help them get a deal done next week.

“The House Republicans are committed to working through the weekend, working tomorrow, and working more tonight. Working over the weekend with our goal of still trying to get something done on roads and education by July 1,” Hall said.

Hall said he believed his Democratic counterparts worked better with added pressure from that deadline. He claimed the Senate adding more session days to its calendar for next week as a win.

The Senate had planned to take the first two weeks of July off.

All sides of the negotiating table say they’re optimistic about getting something done, acknowledging it would be difficult.

Reporters caught State Budget Director Jen Flood leaving the governor’s office at the state Capitol Thursday night. She said negotiators were “having great conversations,” when pressed for a comment.

Democrats, however, are still frustrated by the time crunch. They accuse House Republicans of delaying the process by waiting until a couple weeks ago to release their school budget proposal.

Rep. Alabas Farhat (D-Dearborn) is the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee.

“We are seeing a budget process that normally takes months to play out, playing out within a span of four to five days,” Farhat said. “We shouldn’t be in this spot right now where we’re five days before the [statutory] deadline contemplating whether or not we’ll have this budget. So school districts don’t have to keep wondering and teachers don’t have to keep wondering if they’re going to be pink slipped or not.”

Hall said he and House Republicans have been vocal about wanting to keep to the July 1 deadline for months. Democrats have as well, though some have raised doubts in recent weeks about that feasibility without having a complete budget proposal from the House.

The odds of passing a full state budget next week are dim.