A case involving a frozen embryo that’s at the center of a divorce dispute will not be heard by the Michigan Supreme Court. The court declined the case in an order released Friday.

The Supreme Court order leaves in place an appeals court decision that awarded the embryo to ex-husband David Markiewicz. The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in December of 2023 that he would get custody because he has the closest biological connection to the embryo and should not be forced to have another child with his ex-wife, Sarah Markiewicz. The appeals court panel divided on the question, with one judge ruling the embryo should go to the ex-wife.

Sarah Markiewicz became pregnant three times through in vitro fertilization. The embryo at issue in the court case, as in Sarah’s other IVF pregnancies, was made with the ex-husband’s sperm, while the egg was donated by the ex-wife’s sister. The couple also has one child conceived naturally.

Sarah Markiewicz argued for possession of the frozen embryo because it could be her final opportunity to have another child. She also argued she was entitled to the embryo under the Michigan Reproductive Freedom for All amendment to the state constitution.

David Markiewicz said earlier he would either have the embryo destroyed or donated for scientific use if he won the case.

“My client is very happy and relieved that he can now put this chapter behind him,” said his attorney, Trish Haas, in an email to Michigan Public Radio. “His disposition of the pre-embryo will now be his personal choice.”

The Supreme Court order was unsigned, but Justice Brian Zahra wrote a concurring statement calling on the Legislature to enact standards to avoid future conflicts as IVF becomes more common.

“Broadly speaking, the primary issue is how the law should classify and treat human embryos, frozen or otherwise, which, at a minimum, have the potential to develop into autonomous human beings,” he wrote. “This question implicates some of the most perplexing debates in society, invoking deep-seated and conflicting beliefs about morality, ethics, religion, human life, and personal autonomy.” 

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has appointed a new justice to the state Supreme Court.

Noah Hood will serve a partial term until 2026. He’s filling a seat vacated by former Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement.

Clement was appointed by then-Gov. Rick Snyder, a Republican, in 2017. She left the court earlier this year to serve as president of the National Center for State Courts. Justice Megan Cavanagh replaced Clement as the chief justice.

Hood has served on the state Court of Appeals in Detroit since 2022. Before that, he sat on the Wayne County Third Circuit Court for three years. He has also served as a federal prosecutor in Michigan and Ohio.

If Hood chooses to run, he and Cavanaugh will be up for election in 2026.

The Michigan Supreme Court ruled Thursday that mandatory life-without-parole sentences for 19- and-20-year-old defendants violate the state Constitution.

The majority decision by a divided Supreme Court held that the sentences constitute “unconstitutionally harsh and disproportionate punishment” and will require resentencing hearings for roughly 580 prisoners convicted of murder. This follows similar decisions recently by the Supreme Court affecting inmates handed automatic life-without-parole (LWOP) sentences for crimes committed when they were 16, 17 and 18.

“Mandatorily condemning such offenders to die in prison, without first considering the attributes of youth that late adolescents and juveniles share, no longer comports with the ‘evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society,’” wrote Justice Elizabeth Welch in the majority decision, adding that violates the cruel or unusual punishment clause of the Michigan Constitution. She also wrote, “We do not foreclose the possibility that LWOP could be an appropriate punishment under rare circumstances.”

Justice Richard Bernstein wrote in a separate opinion that he would draw the line at 25 years old, based on “a consensus of relevant scientific studies.”

But Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement said the majority focused too much on the offender versus the offense.

Clement wrote in her dissent that “the majority downplays the gravity of first-degree murder.” She said, “The premeditated taking of a life is an act of the highest moral and legal consequence. A punishment of great severity is therefore proportionate.”

The cases originated in Wayne and Genesee counties. Andrew Czarnecki was 19 years old and Montario Taylor was 20 years old when they were charged with first-degree murder in separate cases. Their appeals were combined because the constitutional questions were similar.

Attorney Maya Menlo with State Appellate Defender Office said research shows young adults and older teens are very similar and the Supreme Court’s decision in these cases reflects that.

“Adolescents have brains that are not fully developed, which results in them being more reckless and also more likely to rehabilitate,” she told Michigan Public Radio. “The court adopted the scientific consensus that 19- and 20-year-olds have the same reduced culpability and the same capacity for rehabilitation as people who are 18-year-olds and younger.”

Prosecutors say the decisions are also very painful for survivors who will have to relive their loved ones’ murders in resentencing hearings.

Jon Wojtala is the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office chief of appeals. He said the decision is not a surprise, but still “a gut punch” in part because it will require survivors to relive the tragedy of the violent loss of a loved one. He said Wayne County has more than 400 cases to deal with.

“We’re going to have to hustle very, very hard to get these cases to a point of having the resentencings and when we do have the resentencings, it’s a punch to the victims’ families, to the victims’ loved ones, to have to once again be traumatized,” he told Michigan Public Radio.

Wojtala says most of the resentencing hearings will have to take place within six months. He expects the state Supreme Court decision to be the final word.

Environmental groups and tribal nations are asking the Michigan Supreme Court to put the brakes on a Canadian company’s plans to bury an oil and gas pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac, a waterway that connects Lake Michigan and Lake Huron.

The appeal filed Thursday asks the Supreme Court to reverse a decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals and a determination by the Michigan Public Service Commission to allow Enbridge to move ahead with the Great Lakes Tunnel project, which would encase the company’s Line 5 oil and gas pipeline. The plaintiffs claim the public service commission failed to perform a thorough review before giving its permission.

“These failures jeopardize the sanctity of the Great Lakes and the Tribal economic and cultural interests and treaty-protected rights, which are inherent rights, including ‘the usual privileges of occupancy’ — such as the rights to fish, hunt, and gather, in perpetuity,” the complaint said. “They also threaten to harm everyone who depends on the Great Lakes for drinking water, recreation, or economic benefit because all likely effects of the proposed project, including oil spills, have not been considered.”

The tribes argue the commission’s review failed to fully consider the consequences of leaks or a spill in a waterway that could lead to widespread contamination of the Great Lakes.

“If you take a step back and you do that holistic review and analysis, I think people would understand that there are alternatives that could lead to a decommissioning of Line 5 and wouldn’t have to construct this one-off tunnel through the Straits of Mackinac,” said David Gover, a senior attorney with the Native American Rights Fund, which represents the Bay Mills Indian Community.

Gover told the Michigan Public Radio Network the tunnel’s location also violates long-standing treaty rights and disrespects “a sacred place” for tribes.

“So, any proposed tunneling and running of a pipeline through that area is a desecration of that sacred place,” he said. “It would like be putting an oil and gas pipeline under the Vatican or through the Garden of Eden.”

Enbridge spokeperson Ryan Duffy said in a statement e-mailed to MPRN that the Michigan Public Service Commission and the appeals court got it right.

“The February decision from the Michigan Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the comprehensive and detailed work of the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) to approve the application for the Great Lakes Tunnel Project,” he said. “The Michigan Court of Appeals concluded that the MPSC appropriately examined the location of the Line 5 replacement segment within the Great Lakes Tunnel, consistent with Michigan law.”

He said the tunnel will make “what has always been a safe pipeline even safer.”

Enbridge faces other legal and procedural hurdles, including state and federal permits and other lawsuits. The protective tunnel was part of a agreement between Enbridge and the then-Gov. Rick Snyder’s administration. That was following revelations of known gaps in the existing line’s protective coating and an anchor strike in 2018 that damaged the line.

More than 250 felons sent to prison for life with no chance of parole for crimes committed when they were 18 years old must have their sentences reviewed under a decision released Wednesday by the Michigan Supreme Court.

The unanimous 6-0 decision expands an earlier ruling that lifers convicted of first degree- or felony murder when they were younger than 18 are entitled to resentencing hearings. (Justice Kimberly Thomas recused herself from the case because she was involved in it before joining the Supreme Court in January.) “

The same will now apply to 18-year-olds.

“And at that resentencing, they’ll have the opportunity to demonstrate to the circuit court that they are rehabilitated and capable of rejoining society,” said attorney Maya Menlo with the State Appellate Defender Office.

She told the Michigan Public Radio Network that life without parole still remains an option.

“The prosecuting attorneys in each county will review the cases and will decide whether they want to pursue a sentence of life without parole, but we expect that that sentence will be extremely rare.”

Special Assistant Wayne County Prosecutor Timothy Baughman said now prosecutors have to make some decisions on these cases.

“Prosecutors are going to have to look at them and determine, are we just going to accede to a resentencing to a term of years or is this one of the cases that we want to have a hearing on and argue that the defendant should still get life without parole? So there’s a lot of decisions that are going to have to be made by prosecutors,” he said.

The defendant is John Antonio Poole, who was 18 years old in 2002 when his uncle paid him $300 to shoot a man because his girlfriend owed him money. Poole is now 42 and being held at the Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility in Ionia.

In a related case, the state Supreme Court will rule soon on whether to expand the ruling to include lifers sentenced for crimes committed as 19- and 20-year-olds.

The Michigan Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on whether the state’s felony murder sentencing standard is constitutional and what to do if it’s not.

In Michigan, people over 18 who is are of convicted of a felony such as armed robbery where someone is killed in the process are sentenced to life with no chance of parole.

In an order issued Friday, the court said the questions it will consider include whether life without parole for felony murder violates the Eighth Amendment, whether the state should require proof of malice or intent to commit murder in order to impose the sentence, and whether a decision might be applied retroactively.

The felony murder standard means prosecutors do not have to specifically prove malice or intent. If the court reverses that standard entirely or in part, it could affect the sentences of hundreds of inmates who’ve spent decades in prison.

Timothy Baughman with the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan told the Michigan Public Radio Network the challenge to that standard raises difficult questions. He said there are hundreds of inmates serving life without parole in Michigan.

“Should we overrule that and apply it to everybody who’s convicted and still in prison and alive,” said Baughman, “and some of those, they’re not like the getaway drivers, there are some very vicious murderers.”

But attorney Deborah LaBelle with the American Civil Liberties Union said some of the people convicted under the standard are not the actual killers even if they were involved in the underlying felony.

She said Michigan’s felony murder law is very sweeping in that it treats convicted killers and accomplices the same way when it comes to sentencing.

“If someone dies at the hands of someone else and you were in any way involved with the felony, the crime surrounding the homicide, you get punished the exact same way as the person who committed the murder.”

If the Supreme Court overrules its almost 50-year-old precedent, it would also have to determine the remedy.

“What should we do?” LaBelle said. “Should people be resentenced? Should there be a term of years that we determine is appropriate? How do we handle this?”

The court has not set a date for oral arguments.