A new judicial task force report calls for an overhaul in how Michigan’s local courts are funded.

The report says the local jurisdictions rely too much on fines and fees to fund their operations. The report says that is not only unfair, it undermines faith that courts and judges are more interested in dispensing justice than collecting money.

Court costs and challenges

State Court Administrator Tom Boyd says it’s no secret that confidence in policing and the fairness of courts is under challenge. “It isn’t that folks that come before the courts aren’t paying their fair share, it’s that they’re paying way more than their fair share. And, so, the report tries to get at a mechanism to ensure that people pay the right amount and that the people that assess that revenue aren’t motivated by profit.”

Bonsitu Kitaba-Gaviglio is the acting legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan. She says Michigan’s court problematic funding system could be vulnerable open to a constitutional challenge. “The obligation to tax, assess, to fund the operation of the government is a responsibility of the Legislature, not the judiciary, and so that’s a constitutional concern, and second, it raises serious due process concerns.”

She says people can’t always expect fair treatment when judges have a vested financial interest in guilty verdicts and imposing fines and fees.

Tom Boyd, the state court administrator, says in some jurisdictions, courts are so flush with revenue it helps fund other parts of local government. Meanwhile, in other places courts barely break even. “I challenge you to go hang around district courts where you live today and stop people and ask them what they think the government wants from them and the overwhelming answer is going to be money.”

One potential solution

One of the recommendations is to take all the fines, fees and costs collected by all the courts and put it all into one pot to be shared statewide. The state would also develop a plan to prioritize based on the needs of local court systems, including how busy they are and the types and complexity of the cases.

Monroe County Administrator Michael Bosanac was part of the task force. He says all that money from fines, fees and costs would go into a state-managed fund, and could only be spent on local courts, and not diverted for other purposes.

“We’re not saying that those functions are not important. They’re really important. We’re just simply saying that in this new model that they should not be funded from court resources and revenue. They should be funding those from some other source of money.”

There’s hope these recommendations will give the Legislature a framework to comply with a court decision.

An on-going effort

The Michigan Supreme Court ruled nearly a dozen years ago that local courts cannot arbitrarily impose court costs on defendants to fund their operations. The Legislature has voted itself multiple extensions since then and there is bipartisan interest in finalizing a solution.

”It’s a super-important issue that we, I’m hoping that the Legislature can finally get resolved,” says State Senator Stephanie Chang. She’s a Democrat who chairs the Senate Civil Rights, Judiciary and Public Safety Committee.

Chang says a resolution is overdue to resolve the conflict between the fair administration of justice and leaning on defendants to provide a major source of funding. “So how can we make sure that we have a stable funding system that funds our trial courts in a way that gets rid of that conflict?”

It is a big and complex task, but Chang says she is optimistic that even in a divided political environment, the Legislature can reach a bipartisan solution by the end of next year.

For a long time, Michigan’s roads didn’t have the funding they needed. Last month lawmakers placed a 24%tax on marijuana products sold in the state to fill that gap. The vote was mostly along party lines with Democrats supporting it, and Republicans rejecting the measure.

But the vote needed bipartisan support, and they got it from Upper Peninsula State Senator Ed McBroom. Last week, Metro Producer Sam Corey spoke with the Republican about why he gave a “yes” vote, and how he’s found common ground with Democrats who live in Michigan’s cities. 

They spoke before the state Senate voted to cover SNAP funding and before President Donald Trump complied with rulings to temporarily and partially fund SNAP for this month.

At the end of the conversation, state Senator McBroom was asked about whether he would support state funding for SNAP. Senator McBroom, along with several other Senate Republicans, did not attend the vote for that in the state senate later the same day. 

McBroom’s office said that the senator was told by Democratic leadership that they wouldn’t be voting on anything and that the SNAP bill wasn’t originally on the day’s agenda. Democratic state Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks’ office said the Senate Republican caucus was provided the bill and had time to meet to discuss it ahead of the vote.

Listen to The Metro weekdays from 10 a.m. to noon ET on 101.9 FM and streaming on-demand.

Subscribe to The Metro on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or NPR or wherever you get your podcasts.

More stories from The Metro

Michigan’s $81 billion budget opens with a promise to put more money into classrooms.

It raises per-student funding to record levels and keeps free breakfast and lunch on the table for 1.4 million children. It’s a lifeline for many schools after years of uneven pandemic recovery and shrinking federal aid. But those gains come as districts grapple with rising costs and teacher shortages.

Beyond education, the budget steers nearly $2 billion a year toward fixing Michigan’s roads and bridges. To help pay for it, lawmakers approved a 24% cannabis wholesale tax. That new revenue stream has already drawn a lawsuit from the cannabis industry, claiming the tax is unconstitutional because it alters a voter-approved marijuana law without the supermajority required.

The plan also trims vacant state jobs, pares back business incentive programs, and closes the SOAR fund that once grew large corporate deals. It adds $50 million for affordable housing and maintains funding for child care.

Bridge Michigan reporter Jordyn Hermani has been mapping the winners and losers in this deal. She joined Robyn Vincent on The Metro to discuss what this budget reveals about Michigan’s future.

Listen to The Metro weekdays from 10 a.m. to noon ET on 101.9 FM and streaming on demand.

Subscribe to The Metro on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, NPR.org or wherever you get your podcasts.

More stories from The Metro

Michigan’s cannabis industry has become one of the largest in the nation. Last year alone, people here bought over $3 billion worth of legal weed, second only to California.

Now, the state wants to take that success and pave roads with it. State lawmakers just passed a new 24 percent wholesale tax in the state budget, set to begin in January. It will raise an estimated $420 million a year for transportation projects.

Supporters call it smart budgeting, “pot for potholes.” But others see a troubling shift: a young industry, still finding its footing, being asked to carry the weight of Michigan’s infrastructure.

The Michigan Cannabis Industry Association is taking the debate to court. It has filed a complaint arguing the new wholesale tax unlawfully alters a voter-initiated cannabis law under the state constitution.

Underlying inequalities

There is also a deeper tension. For decades, Black people in Michigan were nearly four times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than white people.

When voters approved the legalization of recreational cannabis in 2018, it came with a promise: that the people most harmed by prohibition would share in the new prosperity.

This new tax could test that promise if higher costs push small, Black- and brown-owned businesses out of the market.

So today, The Metro explores these tensions and concerns through the perspective of people in the cannabis industry.

First, we hear from Jamie Lowell, a longtime cannabis advocate. He’ll help us step back and learn: how does Michigan’s market compare with other states?

Then we turn to Al Williams, owner of DaCut dispensaries, and president of the Detroit Cannabis Industry Association.

Listen to The Metro weekdays from 10 a.m. to noon ET on 101.9 FM and streaming on demand.

Subscribe to The Metro on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, NPR.org or wherever you get your podcasts.

More stories from The Metro

In about a month Detroiters vote to re-shape the city’s government.

After a dozen years, a new mayor will lead the Motor City.

But Detroit City Council member Scott Benson hopes one thing stays the same. The incumbent is running for reelection to represent northeast Detroit.

Benson says Council District 3 faces a flood of problems, including dealing with actual and sometimes massive flooding.

The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Scott Benson: We still have to help with public safety, we still need to help with jobs. We still need to help grow our infrastructure. We need to reboot our infrastructure, in many ways. Our infrastructure is hundreds of years old in certain places within the city of Detroit. And you don’t see it, so it’s easy not to think about it. When we look at stormwater infrastructure, advocating for new pipes, advocating for green stormwater to make us a more resilient space, that takes work. And it doesn’t happen without the heavy lifting and being very strategic and prescriptive around how we rebuild our city from underneath the ground as well. We can get the development from private investment. But the infrastructure, that’s public investment. We have to work with the state, the county and the federal government, which has its ebbs and flows, as we all know. We have to work with all those partners to make sure that we continue to invest in our infrastructure.

Quinn Klinefelter, WDET News: When you are trying to pay for that work, there’s been a lot of talk about the so-called “financial cliff” the city’s facing because federal and other sources of funding are running out. In your view, what should the city do to get more revenue in?

SB: I want to go back to that statement about the financial cliff. I am a fiscal hawk on the Detroit City Council. We have been very strategic in how we utilize that federal funding. It was used as icing and not the cake. We have lived beneath our means in the city of Detroit. I want to continue to ensure we do that we save more than we spend. And we just saw where the mayor made the announcement that we got about a $60 million surplus that we’re going to reprogram this year. So we are in a position where we’re not worried about the loss of federal money.

To get more money in, we’re going to have to continue what we’ve done. Since I’ve been on the Detroit City Council there’s been over a 50% increase in the General Fund. We need to continue that growth. Which means we need more investment, we need to continue population growth. And that’s how we grow our General Fund.

QK: Some of the Detroit mayoral candidates have talked about possibly raising taxes on certain things in the downtown or other areas. What do you think of those proposals?

SB: The one that I’m thinking of is a tax on events. I’m not opposed to that. I believe the thought is that we would use that revenue to offset other tax obligations. It would be an additional opportunity to reduce property taxes. We have to figure out a way to reduce the cost to live in the city of Detroit when it comes to operating a home. We have to incentivize people to move back into the city of Detroit. And our property taxes and our car insurance, that’s a disincentive. We need to figure that part out. But having a tax of that nature, it hits on the downtown-specific events and it’s something that’s been done successfully around the country. So I am more than happy to take a look at how we can implement something like that in the city of Detroit.

If we want to grow our city, we have to do it by bringing in everybody.

QK: When I talk to some people around the city, they still bring up the specter of crime. They fear sometimes being in their own neighborhoods, including over in your district, which I go through every single day. In your view, what can be done about that? I know you favor the ShotSpotter system, which is supposed to alert police when it detects gunfire. And there’s lots of talk about community policing. But if you do something like add more personnel to the police department, that would take extra money. So what do you see as the best ways to address crime?

SB: ShotSpotter was something that I championed back in 2015, before it was cool. CVI, community violence intervention, I’ve also championed that in the third district. and we’ve seen results. So I continue to champion those items. We’ve given a pay raise to our police department so that we can keep and attract additional police officers. But we’re going to have to continue to leverage those items because we are not a wealthy district. We don’t have any of the traditional sexy neighborhoods. But we see a huge brunt of the crime, which means that my bosses, the residents, are often victims of crime. And when you tell other people, “Hey, come to the city. We’ve got all these assets, the quality of life that you’re looking for.” People say crime, either real or perceived, is an issue. If we want to grow our city, we have to do it by bringing in everybody. Income diversity is something that we need here in the city of Detroit.

QK: You’d been caught up in some controversy a while back as part of a federal corruption investigation into several public officials in the city over bribery allegations. They charged former Detroit City Council Member Andre Spivey with that. But they closed other cases at the beginning of this year with no charges filed against anyone else, including yourself. Do you feel exonerated after all that? Or are there any lingering concerns that somehow you could have been tarnished to where opponents can try to throw something at you about it?

SB: Any time that the federal government comes to your house unannounced, that’s a problem. But the grand jury did not indict anyone in my office, in my colleague’s office, none of us. The federal government even provided a letter indicating they were dropping the investigation, which it rarely, rarely does. There’s always going to be that. “Oh, your name was spoken with those words.” But you know what? They took a very deep dive into me, my personal finances. And we came up clean. My team came up clean, my colleague’s team came up clean. So I do feel exonerated.

QK: One thing I try to always ask anybody that’s running for office is why people should vote for them. So what would you tell voters? Why should they reelect you to Council?

SB: Number one, I have added value to my district when it comes to jobs. And I am all about jobs. My three priorities are jobs, jobs and more jobs. And we are not a typical area where people think about investment. Because we are overwhelmingly low-income in the third district, it does not mean that we are low-quality. I fought for the “Dining with Confidence” ordinance when I saw there were a number of major restaurant chains that thought they could serve residents on the northeast side of Detroit poisoned food, improper food. I fought very hard and lost once but won the second time to get an ordinance that holds restaurants accountable. They have to publicize their scores when it comes to their food compliance and food safety. It’s not just about being treated well in the downtown area. We pay taxes on the northeast side of Detroit as well.

More election coverage

Last week, the lights went dim on a renewable energy program with big promise for the planet and your pocketbook. 

Michigan was set to receive $156 million from Solar for All. 

The money would have helped low-income households add rooftop or community solar, paid for battery storage and basic upgrades like panels, wiring, or roof work, and funded workforce training and community outreach. Households were projected to save about 20% on electric bills—roughly $400 annually. 

The Environmental Protection Agency terminated the $7 billion program after Congress rescinded the funds via President Trump’s new tax-and-spending law. Lawmakers are contesting the move, but for now, projects are paused, and families who expected relief from high energy bills will keep waiting. 

Oakland County Commission Chair Dave Woodward has supported local solutions that lower residents’ costs and give businesses tools to adopt renewable energy. He joined Robyn Vincent to discuss what a real path forward could look like in the absence of federal support.

Listen to The Metro weekdays from 10 a.m. to noon ET on 101.9 FM and streaming on demand.

Subscribe to The Metro on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, NPR.org or wherever you get your podcasts.

More stories from The Metro

By Scott Neuman, NPR

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the conduit for federal funds to NPR and PBS, announced on Friday that it is beginning to wind down its operations given President Trump has signed a law clawing back $1.1 billion in funding for public broadcasting through fiscal year 2027.

The announcement follows a largely party-line vote last month that approved the cuts to public broadcasting as part of a $9 billion rescissions package that also included cuts to foreign aid that was sent by the White House earlier this year. While public media officials had held a glimmer of hope that lawmakers would restore some of the money in the following year, the Senate Appropriations Committee declined to do that on Thursday.

“Despite the extraordinary efforts of millions of Americans who called, wrote, and petitioned Congress to preserve federal funding for CPB, we now face the difficult reality of closing our operations,” CPB President and CEO Patricia Harrison said in a statement. “CPB remains committed to fulfilling responsibilities and supporting our partners through this transition with transparency and care.”

“Public media has been one of the most trusted institutions in American life, providing educational opportunity, emergency alerts, civil discourse, and cultural connection to every corner of the country,” Harrison said.

CPB informed employees that the majority of staff positions will be eliminated with the close of the fiscal year on September 30, 2025. It said a small team would remain until January to “focus on compliance, fiscal distributions, and resolution of long-term financial obligations including ensuring continuity for music rights and royalties that remain essential to the public media system,” according to the CPB statement.

Disclosure: This story was reported and written by NPR correspondent Scott Neuman. It was edited by Deputy Business Editor Emily Kopp and Managing Editor Vickie Walton-James. Under NPR’s protocol for reporting on itself, no NPR corporate official or news executive reviewed this story before it was posted publicly.

Read the original article.