What

Where

Trusted Across Michigan

2,500

+

Verified Listings

Built for Clients & Attorneys

Every Practice Area

Your Search Starts Here:
Michigan Top Lawyers makes it simple to find the right attorney.

Our Top Rated Lawyers

Popular Exclusive Listings In Our Directory

The Elder Care Firm

The Elder Care Firm

Be the first one to rate!

860 W Grand River Ave

Practice Areas : Elder Law

Seva Law Firm

Be the first one to rate!

1050 Wilshire Suite 335 Troy, MI 48084

Practice Areas : Insurance

Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton, P.C.

Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton, P.C.

Be the first one to rate!

101 West Big Beaver Road 10th Floor Columbia Center Troy, Michigan 48084

Practice Areas : Commercial Real Estate

Freel Professional Corp

Freel Professional Corp

Be the first one to rate!

540 West Lake St., Suite 2 Tawas City, MI 48763

Practice Areas : Admiralty and Maritime Law

Davis Law Group PLLC

Davis Law Group PLLC

Be the first one to rate!

27600 Northwestern Hwy Ste 215 Southfield, MI 48034

Practice Areas : Criminal Law

Kathryn Wayne-Spindler & Associates

Kathryn Wayne-Spindler & Associates

Be the first one to rate!

425 West Huron Street, Suite 120 Milford, MI 48381

Practice Areas : Criminal Law

How it Works

It’s easy to find and book a lawyer and also to share your experience.

Find Your Lawyer

Find Your Lawyer

Explore top Michigan lawyers by city, practice area, and reviews.

Contact a Lawyer

Contact a Lawyer

Connect with trusted Michigan attorneys for fast, reliable help.

Review A Lawyer

Review A Lawyer

Rate Michigan lawyers and guide others to the best legal support.

Browse Lawyers

Find the Michigan Attorney for YOU!

Real Reviews from Clients

Across Michigan

Michigan Legal News

Federal Habeas Corpus in Michigan: Deadlines & Relief

Federal Habeas Corpus in Michigan: Deadlines & Relief

Federal Habeas Corpus in Michigan: Challenging a Conviction After State Appeals 1 By James Czarnecki | Czarnecki & Taylor PLLC When a Michigan criminal appeal ends without relief, the consequences reach far beyond the courthouse. A person remains incarcerated. A family continues searching for answers. And a question becomes urgent: Can a federal court still do anything about this conviction? Sometimes, yes. Federal habeas corpus allows a person in custody under a Michigan state-court judgment to challenge that custody on federal constitutional or other federal-law grounds. The principal statute is 28 U.S.C. § 2254. But federal review has its own deadline, procedural barriers, and demanding standards. The work done during the Michigan appeal and post-conviction proceedings can determine whether a federal court may consider a claim at all. LII / Legal Information Institute This guide explains how federal habeas corpus works for Michigan convictions, how it connects with an MCR 6.500 motion, and what defendants and families should know before an opportunity for review is lost. Concerned about a deadline? Call James Czarnecki at (586) 718-2345 or contact Czarnecki & Taylor PLLC to discuss the case. You do not need to have every transcript before making the initial inquiry. What is federal habeas corpus? A petition for a writ of habeas corpus asks a federal court to determine whether a person’s custody violates federal law. For someone challenging a Michigan criminal judgment, that usually means identifying a violation of a right protected by the United States Constitution. Examples include constitutionally ineffective representation, suppression of material favorable evidence, an involuntary plea, or a conviction unsupported by constitutionally sufficient evidence. A § 2254 proceeding is a separate civil case. It does not give the defendant another jury trial simply because the state appeal was unsuccessful. Its purpose is to address unlawful custody within the limits Congress and the Supreme Court have imposed. LII / Legal Information Institute For the earlier stages of review, see our Michigan criminal appeal process guide. How is federal habeas different from an appeal or a 6.500 motion? ProcedureWhere it ordinarily beginsIts roleMichigan direct appealThe appropriate Michigan appellate courtReviews a conviction or sentence under applicable state and federal law and appellate rules.MCR 6.500 motion for relief from judgmentThe Michigan court that entered the judgmentProvides a route for collateral challenges subject to Michigan’s post-conviction requirements.Federal petition under § 2254A United States district courtChallenges custody under a state judgment for a federal-law violation, subject to federal habeas restrictions.Motion under § 2255Ordinarily the federal sentencing courtChallenges a federal conviction or sentence under a different statutory framework. These procedures can interact, but they are not interchangeable. An issue that supports relief under Michigan law may not support federal habeas relief. A state motion that remains available may not preserve a federal deadline that has already expired. The source of the judgment matters more than the prison’s location. Someone serving a Michigan state sentence generally proceeds under § 2254; someone challenging a federal judgment ordinarily proceeds under § 2255. Section 2241 covers other categories of custody challenges and is not a general way around § 2254’s restrictions. LII / Legal Information Institute Our Michigan motion for relief from judgment guide explains the state procedure in greater detail. Who can seek federal habeas relief from a Michigan conviction? The petitioner must satisfy the custody requirement when the petition is filed. Imprisonment qualifies. Probation and parole can also qualify because they impose continuing restraints on liberty. A conviction’s lingering consequences do not ordinarily establish custody once its sentence has fully expired. Employment difficulties, reputational injury, or other collateral consequences are not substitutes for examining this requirement. Cases involving multiple judgments, consecutive sentences, or a later sentence affected by an earlier conviction require separate analysis. See Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488 (1989). Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center Eligibility also depends on questions such as whether the petition is timely, whether the claims were properly presented in state court, and whether an earlier federal petition creates additional restrictions. What is the deadline for federal habeas corpus in Michigan? Most § 2254 petitions are subject to a one-year federal limitations period. That does not necessarily mean one year from sentencing or one year from the last document received from a court. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), the period runs from the latest applicable statutory starting point: Finality of the judgment after direct review, or expiration of the time for seeking that review. Removal of an unconstitutional state-created impediment that prevented filing. The Supreme Court’s initial recognition of a qualifying new constitutional right made retroactively applicable on collateral review. The date the claim’s factual basis could have been discovered through due diligence. The first starting point governs many cases. The others have specific requirements; they are not automatic extensions. LII / Legal Information Institute When does a Michigan conviction become final? Finality depends on the actual appellate history. When a defendant properly seeks review in Michigan’s highest court, the ordinary analysis accounts for the opportunity to seek United States Supreme Court review. That usually includes the 90-day certiorari period if no certiorari petition is filed. A defendant who does not seek available review in the state’s highest court does not automatically receive that same additional 90 days. Finality may occur when the time for seeking the omitted state review expires. Reopened direct appeals and new judgments require additional analysis. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (2012). Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center An attorney should reconstruct the chronology from the court records: sentencing, postjudgment motions, appellate applications, orders, and any requests for rehearing or Supreme Court review. Does a 6.500 motion stop the federal deadline? A properly filed state application for post-conviction or other collateral review generally pauses the federal limitations period while it is pending, including qualifying state appellate review. This is statutory tolling under § 2244(d)(2). Tolling pauses time that remains. It does not ordinarily give the petitioner a fresh year. For illustration, assume a limitations period contains 365 days and 200 countable days have elapsed before a qualifying state motion is filed. During the period of qualifying pendency, the federal clock pauses. When that tolling ends, approximately 165 days remain—not another 365. This illustration is not a calculation for any particular case. Filing a state motion after the ordinary federal period has expired generally does not revive it. A different statutory starting point or a recognized exception would need its own legal basis. LII / Legal Information Institute What does not automatically stop the clock? Do not assume that time is paused because the family is looking for counsel, waiting for transcripts, investigating evidence, or asking an innocence organization to review the case. Several additional rules matter: An untimely state filing generally does not qualify for statutory tolling. See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005). A pending federal habeas petition does not itself toll the period under § 2244(d)(2). See Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 (2001). Seeking United States Supreme Court review of the denial of state collateral relief does not extend statutory tolling in the same way that direct-review finality operates. See Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327 (2007). Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center What if the deadline appears to have passed? The entire history still needs review. Under Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010), equitable tolling requires diligent pursuit of rights and an extraordinary circumstance that prevented timely filing. It is a demanding, fact-specific exception. Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center A sufficiently persuasive showing of actual innocence can also permit review despite an expired limitations period in a qualifying case. But saying that the jury reached the wrong result is not enough. The innocence standard is discussed below. Must every claim first be raised in Michigan courts? Ordinarily, yes. Federal habeas law generally requires exhaustion of available state remedies: the state courts must have a fair opportunity to address the federal claim before a federal court grants relief. For Michigan cases, that ordinarily means properly presenting the claim through the Michigan Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court as part of the available review process. Merely filing an appeal does not exhaust every possible issue. Each claim’s federal legal basis and supporting facts matter. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999). Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center For example, an argument that evidence violated a Michigan evidence rule is not necessarily the same as an argument that its exclusion violated the federal constitutional right to present a defense. Adding the words “due process” later may not cure the failure to fairly present the federal claim. Exhaustion can occur during direct review or appropriate collateral proceedings. A claim properly exhausted on direct appeal does not automatically require a redundant 6.500 motion. If a federal claim has not been presented and a state remedy remains available, a 6.500 motion may be necessary. If no state remedy remains, the problem may instead be procedural default. Limited statutory exceptions to exhaustion exist, but a petitioner should not assume they apply because state review seems unlikely to succeed. What is procedural default? Procedural default can prevent federal merits review when a claim was rejected under an independent and adequate state procedural rule, or when it was not properly presented and the available state procedure is now barred. The analysis requires reading the relevant orders and the rule actually applied. A denial on the merits and a rejection for failure to comply with a procedural requirement can have very different consequences. In appropriate cases, a petitioner can overcome default by establishing legally sufficient cause and actual prejudice, or by satisfying the demanding actual-innocence gateway. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991). Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center An allegation that an earlier lawyer made a mistake does not automatically excuse default. Any ineffective-assistance theory must satisfy its own legal and procedural requirements. Exceptions involving representation in collateral proceedings are narrow and do not create a general right to repair every omission in federal court. Why is the federal habeas standard so demanding? The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, usually called AEDPA, significantly limits federal review of state criminal judgments. When a state court has adjudicated a claim on its merits, § 2254(d) generally prevents relief unless the decision: Contradicted or unreasonably applied clearly established federal law determined by the United States Supreme Court; or Rested on an unreasonable factual determination in light of the state-court evidence. The distinction between an incorrect decision and an unreasonable one is critical. A federal judge’s disagreement with the state court ordinarily is not enough. Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011), explains the substantial latitude federal habeas review gives state merits decisions. Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center For § 2254(d)(1), Supreme Court holdings supply the controlling benchmark. A helpful Michigan decision or Sixth Circuit decision cannot independently create clearly established Supreme Court law. The timing of the Supreme Court precedent also matters. An unexplained state-court denial can still receive AEDPA deference. Conversely, when a claim was not adjudicated on the merits, the review analysis changes, but the petitioner must still address exhaustion, default, and other applicable restrictions. Must the constitutional error have affected the result? The claim’s governing prejudice or harmless-error rules matter. In Brown v. Davenport, 596 U.S. 118 (2022), a case arising from Michigan, the Supreme Court held that satisfying the federal habeas harmless-error test does not dispense with AEDPA when the state court adjudicated the claim on the merits. For trial errors subject to this framework, counsel must address both the applicable AEDPA barrier and the rule from Brecht v. Abrahamson, which asks whether the error had a substantial and injurious effect on the verdict. Other claims have their own prejudice rules. A petition must identify the correct test and connect it to the actual evidence. supremecourt.gov What claims can support federal habeas relief? The strongest analysis begins with the specific federal right, the evidence establishing its violation, and the procedural route by which the claim reached federal court. Ineffective assistance of counsel Under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), a defendant ordinarily must establish objectively deficient representation and a reasonable probability of a different result without that deficiency. Potential issues include failure to investigate a meaningful defense, obtain necessary expert assistance, pursue a viable suppression issue, or provide competent plea advice. Every claim depends on what competent counsel should have done and why the omission mattered. For example, identifying an uncalled witness is only the beginning. Counsel needs evidence of what the witness would have said, whether the witness was available, why the testimony was omitted, and how it changes the evaluation of the prosecution’s proof. When a state court rejected the claim on its merits, AEDPA adds another layer of deference. Negligence alone is not the constitutional test, and an ineffective-assistance label is not a shortcut around habeas restrictions. Our ineffective assistance of counsel and Ginther hearing guide explains the importance of developing these claims in Michigan courts. Suppressed evidence and false testimony Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), governs suppression of material favorable evidence. Favorable evidence can include evidence supporting the defense or impeaching an important prosecution witness. The knowing use of materially false testimony, or failure to correct it, presents a related but distinct due-process issue under Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959). A witness’s inconsistency does not automatically establish a Napue violation. A useful investigation examines the actual testimony, evidence of falsity, the prosecution’s knowledge, and the significance of the testimony under the governing standard. Read our prosecutorial misconduct in Michigan criminal appeals guide for related state appellate issues. Constitutionally insufficient evidence Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), asks whether a rational factfinder could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt when the evidence is viewed in the prosecution’s favor. Federal habeas review does not ordinarily allow a judge to retry witness credibility. When the state court decided the claim on the merits, AEDPA also limits review of that decision. The analysis must identify an element the evidence could not constitutionally establish. See our discussion of insufficient evidence in a Michigan criminal appeal. Unconstitutional guilty pleas and plea advice A guilty or no-contest plea does not necessarily eliminate every federal claim. A challenge may concern an involuntary or unknowing plea, constitutionally deficient advice, or another surviving constitutional issue. But a valid guilty plea generally limits challenges to earlier events in the case. For a claim that deficient advice caused the defendant to plead guilty, Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985), ordinarily requires a reasonable probability that competent advice would have led the defendant to reject the plea and insist on trial. Different plea situations require different proof. In the Michigan case Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012), the Supreme Court addressed deficient advice that caused rejection of a plea offer, followed by a trial and a harsher sentence. Our guide to appealing a guilty plea in Michigan explains the state procedure and related issues. Other constitutional claims Depending on the record, federal claims may involve confrontation, the right to present a defense, an involuntary confession, an impartial jury or judge, double jeopardy, or an unconstitutional sentence. These categories identify possible constitutional issues. They do not establish that every claim within them satisfies AEDPA, preservation requirements, or the applicable prejudice test. Which errors usually do not justify federal habeas relief? Federal habeas courts do not ordinarily correct errors of state law standing alone. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991). Examples include a disagreement about a Michigan evidence rule, a purely state-law sentencing-guidelines issue, or a proportionality claim resting only on Michigan law. An independent federal constitutional claim requires its own analysis; describing a state error as unfair does not automatically supply one. This is especially important in sentencing cases. Michigan proportionality review and federal constitutional sentencing review are different inquiries. Our Michigan criminal sentence appeal guide addresses state sentencing challenges. Fourth Amendment suppression claims also face a special restriction. Under Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976), federal habeas relief generally is unavailable on an exclusionary-rule claim when the state provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate it. Losing the suppression motion does not, by itself, establish that the opportunity was inadequate. Can new evidence or new forensic science help? Potentially. But three questions must be kept separate: Does the evidence establish a federal claim? Can the federal court consider it? Is the filing timely? An expert opinion, recantation, undisclosed report, or newly identified witness may affect the merits or a procedural exception. Its date alone does not establish that the underlying facts could not have been discovered earlier through reasonable diligence. Under Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995), a qualifying actual-innocence gateway requires new reliable evidence sufficient to show that, considering the evidence as a whole, it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would convict. McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013), recognizes that a convincing innocence showing can overcome the limitations bar in a qualifying case. Unexplained delay can affect the credibility of that showing. Passing through the gateway permits review of an underlying constitutional claim; it does not itself establish entitlement to the writ. An available Michigan remedy remains important. Our newly discovered evidence in Michigan guide explains issues that can arise in state new-trial and post-conviction proceedings. Why must evidence often be developed in state court first? Do not assume that federal court will provide the first opportunity to build the missing factual record. In Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011), the Supreme Court held that review under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record before the state court that adjudicated the claim on its merits. Shinn v. Ramirez, 596 U.S. 366 (2022), explains further restrictions under § 2254(e)(2). A petitioner cannot generally obtain federal consideration of additional evidence merely by blaming state post-conviction counsel for failing to develop it. The statutory exceptions are narrow. This makes early investigation consequential. Affidavits, expert opinions, exhibits, offers of proof, and properly supported requests for an evidentiary hearing may need to be pursued while the case is in Michigan court. Whether a petitioner diligently sought development and whether the court refused it can matter. For an example of the investigative work involved in a state post-conviction case, read People v. Smith: forensic pathology and appellate investigation. That state-court investigation illustrates the practical work required to develop a claim. Can the federal case be stayed while state remedies are exhausted? Sometimes. A petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims is commonly called a mixed petition. Dismissing it can create a serious limitations problem. Under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), a district court can stay a qualifying mixed petition while the petitioner returns to state court. The analysis includes good cause for the failure to exhaust, potentially meritorious unexhausted claims, and the absence of intentionally dilatory tactics. A stay requires court approval and is not automatic. A protective filing, the claims included in it, and any proposed return to state court must be planned together. Deleting a claim without understanding later-filing restrictions can also have consequences. Where is a Michigan federal habeas petition filed? Michigan has two federal judicial districts: the Eastern District and the Western District. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), a qualifying state-prisoner petition may be filed in the district of custody or the district containing the state court of conviction and sentence. Transfer between those districts may be appropriate. The proper respondent is ordinarily the state officer with custody of the petitioner, usually the warden for an incarcerated person. Different custody arrangements can require different treatment. The petition must identify its grounds and supporting facts and comply with the governing form and filing rules. It should address the state proceedings, timeliness, exhaustion, and any earlier federal petitions. The Eastern District of Michigan’s forms page includes its § 2254 petition form. AO_241mied.doc What happens after the petition is filed? Under the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, proceedings generally involve preliminary judicial review, a response when ordered, relevant state-court materials, and an opportunity for a reply under the court’s schedule. The state may raise timeliness, exhaustion, procedural default, AEDPA, or other defenses. Discovery requires judicial authorization and good cause. An evidentiary hearing is not automatic and remains subject to statutory restrictions. If a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation, the parties must follow the applicable objection procedure and deadline. The district judge then resolves the case through the appropriate process. uscourts.gov There is no dependable universal timeline. Record size, procedural disputes, the court’s docket, and appellate proceedings can affect duration. What happens if federal habeas relief is granted? The remedy depends on the constitutional violation. A federal court may issue a conditional writ requiring release unless the state corrects the violation within a specified period—for example, through a constitutionally valid new trial or resentencing. Relief does not invariably mean an acquittal, immediate release, or the end of the prosecution. A retrial may remain available; the state may appeal; and a stay can affect implementation. Counsel must evaluate the practical consequences of the requested remedy, including other convictions or sentences that may continue to authorize custody. supremecourt.gov Can a denial be appealed to the Sixth Circuit? Ordinarily, an appeal from the denial of a § 2254 petition requires a certificate of appealability, or COA. The statutory requirement is a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000), explains the standard, including the additional inquiry when the district court dismisses on procedural grounds. A COA is not automatic, and requesting one does not replace compliance with the notice-of-appeal deadline. Appeals from Michigan’s federal district courts go to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Can someone file a second federal habeas petition? Sometimes, but a petition classified as second or successive faces strict restrictions. Under § 2244(b), advance authorization from the appropriate court of appeals is required. Previously presented claims and newly presented claims receive different statutory treatment, and qualifying new claims must satisfy narrow requirements concerning retroactive constitutional law or newly discoverable facts and innocence. The phrase is a legal classification, not merely a count of how many papers have been filed. The earlier disposition and any new state judgment can affect the analysis. In Rivers v. Guerrero, 605 U.S. 443 (2025), the Supreme Court made clear that keeping an appeal from the first petition pending does not itself exempt a later petition from the second-or-successive rules after district-court judgment. supremecourt.gov Even before judgment, a timely original petition does not automatically make every later-added claim timely. Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644 (2005), limits when an amendment relates back; arising from the same trial is not enough. The first petition should be prepared with the full procedural history and reasonably available claims in view. When should a family contact a Michigan federal habeas corpus attorney? Contact counsel while state review is still underway, or promptly after an adverse decision. Waiting until every possible state filing has ended can consume time needed to investigate claims and protect the federal deadline. A useful inquiry begins with: The defendant’s full name, court, county, case number, and current custody status. The judgment of sentence and sentencing date. Whether the conviction followed a trial or plea. Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court decisions and filing dates. Every prior 6.500 motion and the orders resolving it. Any earlier federal habeas petition and disposition. A short account of the suspected error or newly discovered evidence. Keep envelopes, filing receipts, prison-mail records, and copies of orders. Dates can be as important as the substance of the claims. You can begin the inquiry with the information you have and identify additional records afterward. Frequently asked questions Can I seek habeas relief if the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal? Possibly. A denial of leave does not automatically end every federal remedy. The federal claims, exhaustion history, limitations period, state-court reasoning, and prior petitions still must be evaluated. Do I always need to file a 6.500 motion first? No. A claim properly exhausted on direct review does not automatically need to be presented again in a 6.500 motion. An unexhausted claim or missing factual record may require additional state proceedings, coordinated with the federal deadline. Does new evidence automatically give me another year? No. A possible later starting point depends on when the relevant factual basis could have been discovered through due diligence. A new document’s date, a new expert’s involvement, and a family’s recent discovery of an old issue are not interchangeable facts. Will the federal judge hear witnesses again? Not necessarily. Many habeas cases are decided on written submissions and the state-court record. Discovery, expanded evidence, and evidentiary hearings require a separate legal basis. Will a lawyer be appointed? Appointment is not automatic in an ordinary noncapital habeas case. A court can appoint counsel for an eligible petitioner when the governing standards are satisfied. The habeas rules require appointment for a financially eligible petitioner when an evidentiary hearing is warranted. LII / Legal Information Institute What does a federal habeas case cost? Representation costs depend on the record, procedural history, and work required. Is habeas corpus the same as a pardon or expungement? No. Federal habeas challenges unlawful custody under the governing federal standards. Clemency and expungement have different legal purposes and procedures. Discuss your post-conviction options with Czarnecki & Taylor PLLC A family should be able to understand what remains possible, what deadlines matter, and what the record can actually establish. Czarnecki & Taylor PLLC represents individuals in Michigan criminal defense, appeals, and post-conviction proceedings. James Czarnecki brings more than two decades of criminal litigation and appellate experience to reviewing convictions, identifying potential errors, and evaluating the evidence needed to support a claim. Michigan Criminal Attorneys In a potential federal habeas matter, the review must connect the constitutional issue with the complete state-court history. That includes the filing deadline, prior presentation of the claim, available record, applicable federal standard, and relief that could address the violation. If you are concerned about a Michigan conviction, an unsuccessful appeal, or evidence that was never properly developed, contact Czarnecki & Taylor PLLC to discuss your post-conviction options. James Czarnecki: (586) 718-234559 N. Walnut Street, Suite 200, Mount Clemens, Michigan 48043 This article provides general information. Available remedies and deadlines depend on the individual case. Contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship; representation begins only after the firm agrees to undertake it. Related Source link

September 26, 2026

Retired judge: ‘ICE tricked us and grabbed our foster son’

Retired judge: ‘ICE tricked us and grabbed our foster son’

In his 31 years on the bench, retired Wayne County judge Michael Callahan saw plenty of liars, schemers and deceivers. So when a convoy of eight armed ICE officers in six SUVs rolled up on his house this summer, claiming they were only there to put an ankle tether on his foster son, his radar went up. They had no warrant or court order in hand, and 83-year-old Callahan wasn’t having it, especially because his refugee son had lived freely in the U.S. for more than seven years, attended every required check-in with ICE, had no criminal record whatsoever, and held a solid, full-time job as a truck driver in metro Detroit. His mind raced. Why was ICE here now, after all these years? And why did they need eight armed officers in tactical gear with magazines, pepper spray and heavy duty body armor just to put on an ankle monitor? “I came out of the house and stood in the middle of the ICE agents and asked, ‘Who’s in charge here?’ They pointed to one man,“ Callahan recalled, noting he turned to the head agent and said: “‘I’m a judge. I’ve been a judge for 31 years and this seems like it’s a little extreme.'” ‘They tricked us all’ Callahan, also a former Wayne County prosecutor and Catholic priest, has adopted eight Detroit children over the years, and fostered another eight refugees. He knows the law and understands the complex immigration system. Yet none of that seemed to matter on the morning of Aug. 2, when the country’s top immigration cops came for his eldest refugee son, scoffed at his judge status − they described him as a person “claiming to be a 3rd circuit court judge” in a follow-up ICE report − and insisted on speaking with the son. Callahan protested in the driveway. Inside the house, his wife − a retired Ford executive − explained the situation to their son: 26-year-old Meschac Munongo of the Democratic Republic of Congo, a mild mannered, 6-foot-6 Golden Glove boxing champ who eventually agreed to come out. “He said, ‘Mom, I don’t want to run the rest of my life, and I don’t want anyone to get hurt. I’ll go outside and let them put a tether on me,’ ” Susan Callahan recalled, choking up. Once in the driveway, Meschac sat down on a patio chair. Two officers approached. A brief conversation ensued. Then the handcuffs came out. It was all a ruse, said the Callahans, who watched in horror as ICE officers arrested the young man they had vowed to protect, told his mom to back away, placed him in the back of a government vehicle and drove off. Some two weeks later, Meschac was on a plane to Cameroon, the Central African nation where the U.S. government decided he would live a new life, thousands of miles away from anyone he knows. “He said that when they were in the car, the ICE officers laughed at how they tricked us all,” said Callahan, who is outraged, frustrated and heartbroken over what happened to Meschac, especially given what he went through to get here. At 17, he crossed the Atlantic Ocean stowed in the hull of a 40-foot fishing boat with his two younger brothers to escape violence that killed his parents. He then trekked across South and Central America and went days without food and water in the jungle of the notorious Darien Gap, where a convoy of 100 immigrants entered together − but only 20 came out alive, the family said. Summer surge in ICE arrests, secret deportation deals Meschac is part of a growing number of immigrants who have been targeted in a ramped-up deportation effort by the Trump administration, which oversaw a surge in ICE arrests this summer. According to the latest U.S. Department of Homeland Security figures, ICE arrested nearly 51,000 undocumented immigrants in August, setting a new high record for ICE arrests in a single month. July held the previous record with 50,200 arrests, though the majority of those getting picked up − 73 percent − had no criminal convictions, according to the Deportation Data Project at the University of California, Berkeley, and UCLA. Against the backdrop of these arrests is another White House immigration crackdown involving secret deals with countries that have agreed to accept deportees who are not their citizens, in exchange for millions of dollars. Though once a rare immigration tool, these third-country deportations have spiked under the Trump administration, which over the last year has sent more than 25,000 immigrants to 29 countries to which they have no ties, including ones with human rights violations, according to Third Party Deportation Watch, a deportation tracker run by Refugees International and Human Rights First. The U.S. has spent at least $42 million on these deals so far. The tactic, though, has come under scrutiny. On Sept. 18, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston struck down the practice of quickly sending immigrants to countries that are not their own, concluding these individuals must first have proper notice and a “meaningful” chance to challenge their deportation if they fear for their safety. The Trump administration is appealing the ruling, which will likely wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court. Meschac, meanwhile, continues to live in a constant state of fear and anxiety in Cameroon, a country that the U.S. State Department has deemed dangerous for travel. “Violent crime, kidnapping for ransom, armed robbery, and carjacking are common in Cameroon,” states the agency’s latest travel advisory, which includes the strict “Do Not Travel” warnings to the country’s Southwest, Northwest, and Far North regions “for any reason due to risk of terrorism, unrest, crime, kidnapping, and improvised explosive devices (IEDs).” Still, this is same country that the U.S. last year brokered a confidential deportation agreement with, and had hoped to keep it quiet, if a letter on file in U.S. District Court is any indication. “Given the highly sensitive nature of our discussions with the Republic of Cameroon, I ask that the Department of Homeland Security refrain from publicly discussing our cooperation with Cameroon on this matter,” U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau wrote in a Jan. 7 letter to then-acting ICE director Todd Lyons. “Right now I’m scared,” Meschac said in a recent phone interview from Cameroon, where he’s been laying low in a $7-a-night hotel, agonizing over his situation. “I know I didn’t do anything wrong,” Meschac said. “I didn’t have any criminal record. I was living the way America needed us to live. I was working by the law and I was not doing something bad.” Meschac now spends most of his time reading in isolation in his room. He has no TV or radio, and has been quite sick in recent days, vomiting frequently and battling severe headaches and stomach pains. He is also afraid to venture outdoors. He said that a lawyer in Cameroon − who is helping him and other refugees − warned him that it’s not safe there, and cautioned him to be careful. He could get mugged, kidnapped, even killed. “Everyday I’m crying, because I don’t know what to do,” said Meschac, who remains uncertain about what’s ahead. “America was like my home … I’m just praying God can help me.” More than anything, he said: “I want to go back to America. I want to stay someplace I’ll be safe. I want to be with my family.” Feds: We didn’t need a reason to deport him Following his arrest in Van Buren Township, a handcuffed, shackled and belly-chained Meschac was taken to a Detroit DHS facility for processing. He was then transported four hours away to the North Lake Correctional Facility in Baldwin, a small town in northwestern Michigan. The Callahans quickly hired an immigration lawyer, who filed an emergency request for a temporary restraining order in federal court. But the government prevailed, arguing − among other things − that under a 2019 court order, Meschac was never guaranteed he could stay here forever, and that it could deport him without having reason to do so. In a statement to the Free Press, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security defended Meschac’s removal, saying he had been facing a “final order of removal” since July 10, 2019, when he was released from custody on supervised release. In other words, the government contends it didn’t need a reason to deport him; the court order was enough, regardless of compliance. DHS also defended the ICE officers’ arrest tactics outside the Van Buren Township home, stating: “Allegations that ICE officers approached Munongo’s home under false pretenses are FALSE. When our heroic law enforcement officers conduct operations, they clearly identify themselves as law enforcement.” The Free Press explained to DHS that the Callahans never alleged the ICE officers did not identify themselves as law enforcement, but rather lied about being there just to put a tether on Meschac. DHS did not respond to the trickery allegation. Reporting by Tresa Baldas, Detroit Free Press / Detroit Free Press USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect Source link

September 26, 2026

A Snapshot of Michigan Tribes Exercising Sovereignty – Turtle Talk

A Snapshot of Michigan Tribes Exercising Sovereignty – Turtle Talk

Today is Michigan Indian Day, designated by Michigan law as the fourth Friday of every September. In honor of the day, I’m offering a snapshot of what Tribal sovereignty looks like in Michigan. It includes: Land Back • Treaty Rights • Citizenship • Education • Child Welfare • Health Care • Policing • Courts • Utilities • Economic Regulation • Manoomin • Culturally Grounded Governance Below are 12 recent examples, one drawn from each Michigan Tribe. It looks like bringing ancestral land home, and deciding what happens next. At the end of 2024, 188 acres along West Grand Traverse Bay were returned to the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. GTB named the land Mashkiigaki, “place of the medicines,” reflecting its significance for hunting, fishing, gathering, medicines, wetlands, and coastal habitat. Since then, GTB has begun reconnecting Tribal citizens with the land and laying the groundwork for ecocultural restoration. The Tribe has surveyed citizens about their memories and aspirations for Mashkiigaki, initiated bird and invasive species surveys, planned a study of creek and wetland hydrology, and begun mapping sensitive habitat and possible public access routes. In 2026, GTB received approximately $1.3 million from NOAA, part of the federal grant approved in 2024, to support restoration and community engagement at Mashkiigaki. The planning remains Tribal-led, with elders, citizens, and government staff helping determine the land’s future. GTB’s announcement on the return of Mashkiigaki It looks like leading a fight to protect treaty-protected waters. Bay Mills Indian Community has been a central leader in the Tribal campaign against both the existing Line 5 dual pipelines and Enbridge’s proposed tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac. Its opposition is grounded in the 1836 Treaty of Washington, treaty-protected fishing and gathering rights, and the Tribe’s sovereign responsibility to protect Michilimackinac, a sacred place at the heart of Anishinaabe creation traditions. Bay Mills formally called for Line 5’s decommissioning in March 2015, supported Michigan’s 2020 revocation and termination of Enbridge’s 1953 easement, and in 2021 formally banished Line 5 from Tribal lands, including the Straits. The Tribe also helped bring the dispute before the U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, which in 2023 recommended that the United States and Canada decommission Line 5. In litigation over the existing crossing, Bay Mills filed amicus briefs supporting the State’s efforts to keep its shutdown cases in state court, including a 2023 Sixth Circuit brief in Nessel v. Enbridge on behalf of a coalition that NARF describes as more than 60 Tribal Nations and First Nations. Bay Mills has simultaneously challenged the proposed tunnel before the Michigan Public Service Commission, EGLE, the Michigan courts, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It intervened in the MPSC proceeding and introduced Tribal and expert testimony on treaty rights, fisheries, climate impacts, alternatives, and tunnel explosion risks. It also challenged EGLE’s 2021 wetlands permit and participated in the Army Corps’ federal review as a cooperating agency. In March 2025, Bay Mills and other Tribes withdrew as cooperating agencies after the Corps moved to fast-track approval under the asserted national “energy emergency.” The MPSC approved the tunnel in December 2023, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in February 2025. In July 2026, the Michigan Supreme Court vacated the MPSC’s approval. It remanded for a new analysis of the project’s environmental effects, feasible alternatives, and impacts on public trust resources (In re Application of Enbridge Energy to Replace & Relocate Line 5, No. 168335 (Mich. July 31, 2026)). EGLE had approved wetlands and bottomlands permits for the tunnel two weeks earlier. The Army Corps issued its record of decision in August notwithstanding the ruling, and Bay Mills condemned the federal decision as a breach of treaty and trust responsibilities. In September 2026, after Governor Whitmer announced that EGLE would re-review its permits, Bay Mills and three other Tribal Nations petitioned for a contested case hearing to overturn them. Bay Mills’ Line 5 information portal Michigan Supreme Court decision It looks like deciding who belongs to the political community. In March 2026, Hannahville Indian Community amended its Tribal Enrollment Ordinance, governing membership applications, the Enrollment Committee, appeals, records, relinquishment, and loss of membership. Few exercises of governmental authority are more foundational than determining the citizenship of the political community. Hannahville’s 2026 Tribal Enrollment Ordinance It looks like reshaping a regional education system. Keweenaw Bay Indian Community is leading a five-year Promise Neighborhood covering the L’Anse Reservation and surrounding Baraga County. The cradle-to-career initiative links local schools with early childhood, family, college, and career supports; KBIC cultural advocates and Ojibwe language instructors also work with area schools to bring Ojibwe language, history, and culture into classrooms. KBIC Promise Neighborhoods U.S. Department of Education project profile It looks like exercising responsibility for Tribal children under Tribal law. The Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe governs child protection through its own Children’s Code and institutions. Tribal law provides for Children’s Court jurisdiction, child protection proceedings, foster care and child care regulation, adoption, and other matters affecting Tribal children, while Anishnaabeg Child and Family Services carries out child and family services within that Tribal governmental and legal framework. Saginaw Chippewa Children’s Code Anishnaabeg Child and Family Services It looks like building a health system across the Upper Peninsula. The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians operates nine health clinics or centers across its 7-county service area, providing varying combinations of medical, dental, behavioral health, pharmacy, and other services. Earlier this week, the Tribe broke ground on a major expansion and renovation of its Sault Health Center, designed to improve patient care while maintaining connections to Anishinaabe spiritual and cultural beliefs. Sault Tribe Health Division September 22 groundbreaking announcement It looks like making jurisdiction work across borders. In October 2025, the City of Petoskey formally swore in Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians Tribal Police under a cross-deputization arrangement allowing LTBB officers to assist within city jurisdiction. Petoskey officers, in turn, were to be sworn in by LTBB so they could respond where the Tribe has primary jurisdiction. The arrangement is especially striking given that shortly after LTBB’s federal reaffirmation, local officials once accused its officers of “impersonating police officers.” Today, Tribal and local governments extend law enforcement authority to one another. Petoskey Department of Public Safety 2025 Annual Report Frank Ettawageshik recounts LTBB’s earlier cross-deputization history It looks like a Tribal court telling another branch of Tribal government what the Constitution requires. In Romanelli v. Tribal Council, the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Tribal Court ruled in May that the Ogema’s proposed FY2026 budget had become the Tribal budget by operation of the Constitution and issued a writ of mandamus requiring the Tribal Council to appropriate the funds. That’s Tribal constitutional law in action, with a Tribal judiciary resolving a separation of powers dispute within Tribal government. Romanelli v. Tribal Council order It looks like making sure the drinking water is safe and the sewer system works. In March, the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians (Gun Lake Tribe) enacted a new Water and Sewer Act. The law creates a Tribal regulatory system covering utility connections, permits, inspections, industrial discharges, water use restrictions, enforcement, fines, and Tribal Court proceedings. Sometimes sovereignty looks like constitutional litigation, and sometimes it looks like the sewer code. Gun Lake Tribe Water and Sewer Act It looks like regulating a new market, and mobilizing government to protect citizens. In 2025, the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians entered a Tribal-State cannabis compact allowing a Tribally regulated cannabis business to participate in Michigan’s regulated market. Then, in January, amid concerns about ICE activity affecting Native people, the Tribal Council issued formal guidance to citizens, waived fees for replacement Tribal IDs, and directed citizens to Tribal enrollment, law enforcement, leadership, and legal offices for assistance. LVD–Michigan cannabis agreement LVD Tribal Council statement regarding ICE activity It looks like making law for a relative rather than merely regulating a commodity. In September 2025, the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi enacted a Mnomen (Wild Rice) Code. The law recognizes Mnomen as the Tribe’s official grain and a protected Tribal resource, creates a Mnomen Wgema composed of Tribal citizens, regulates harvesting and transplantation, authorizes enforcement by Tribal conservation officers, and provides penalties for violations. The Code also recognizes Mnomen as a living spirit, medicine, and part of the Tribe’s migration story. Environmental regulation, cultural responsibility, and Indigenous law operate here in the same legal framework. NHBP Mnomen (Wild Rice) Code It looks like designing governmental institutions on Indigenous terms. Under the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians’ Elders Council Code, the Elders Council is a governmental instrumentality that provides guidance to the membership and to the Band’s legislative, executive, and judicial institutions on matters of history, traditions, and culture. Pokagon law also permits one of the seven Tribal Council seats to be held by an Elders Council representative, who carries all the rights and responsibilities of a Tribal Councilperson. Pokagon Elders Council Code, current through May 2026 Every day across the state, each of Michigan’s 12 Tribes exercises governmental authority over lands, resources, institutions, services, and citizens. Source link

September 25, 2026

Featured in

AI Lawyer Finder

© 2025 Michigan Top Lawyers. All Rights Reserved. Powered by SolutionsPal | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service