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

The House Natural Resources Committee Advances Tribal Buffalo Bill as Interior Restricts Bison Grazing – Turtle Talk

The House Natural Resources Committee Advances Tribal Buffalo Bill as Interior Restricts Bison Grazing – Turtle Talk

The House Natural Resources Committee is moving to support Tribal buffalo restoration while the BLM is proposing a grazing rule that could make some bison restoration projects harder to sustain on federal land. On September 15, the House Natural Resources Committee advanced the Don Young Doug LaMalfa Indian Buffalo Management Act. H.R. 7954 would support Tribal buffalo programs, authorize Interior to transfer surplus buffalo from federal land to Indian land, and require Interior’s buffalo management policy for Indian land to follow Tribal laws and Tribally approved plans. Interior has testified in support of the bill. In May, BLM revoked American Prairie’s permits to graze bison on federal land in Montana, saying the Taylor Grazing Act permits grazing only for livestock managed primarily for production. BLM has also proposed applying a “production-oriented livestock” requirement to BLM grazing permits outside Alaska and eliminating the separate permit provision for indigenous animals. The comment period closed July 13; the rule hasn’t been finalized. American Prairie’s herd has supplied bison to other herds for food sovereignty, cultural restoration, and hunting. On September 4, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction for the three allotments where its bison already graze, finding American Prairie likely to succeed on its claims. The judge expressly considered the effects of BLM’s decision on American Prairie’s Tribal partners. The proposed rule would also reach Tribal herds directly. BLM said its American Prairie decision did not affect Tribal grazing authorizations or Tribal bison herds, but the proposed rule contains no Tribal exclusion. When BLM first applied the production-oriented test to American Prairie in January, the Coalition of Large Tribes protested that it would make it unlikely any Tribal herd could qualify for BLM leases, including those the Fort Bidwell Indian Community and Pit River Tribe are seeking for their buffalo. The proposed rule would apply that test to BLM grazing permits outside Alaska, and COLT has objected that it was published without prior Tribal consultation. The bill wouldn’t decide American Prairie’s case or govern BLM grazing permits. But the case shows why the proposed rule matters to Tribal restoration, since buffalo raised on federal land can be part of bringing buffalo back to Tribal communities. Related Resources H.R. 7954 House Natural Resources Committee, September 15 markup announcement Bureau of Land Management, May 8 permit decision announcement September 4 preliminary injunction order, American Prairie Foundation v. U.S. Department of the Interior Coalition of Large Tribes protest letter, January 30, 2026 Disappearing Bison by Starr Hardridge (Muscogee Creek Nation) Source link

September 24, 2026

Employment – Trafficking – Punitive damages

Employment – Trafficking – Punitive damages

Where a jury found for the plaintiffs under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act and Michigan law, the verdict should be upheld despite the defendants’ argument that the jury’s award of punitive damages in the amount of $450,000 violates due process. “Defendants, Purpose Point Harvesting, LLC and its owners, recruited Guatemalans for seasonal agricultural work in West Michigan. Plaintiffs, five Guatemalan citizens, worked a variety of crops from 2017 to 2019, but their employment was colored by defendants’ alleged illegal conduct, which included defendants charging plaintiffs illegal recruitment fees, subjecting them to squalid living conditions, underpaying them, restricting their freedom, and threatening to deport them if they alerted anyone of their plight. “Plaintiffs sued defendants under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and state law. Following a jury trial, a verdict was returned in favor of plaintiffs, awarding them compensatory and punitive damages but not non-economic damages. On appeal, defendants challenge the punitive damages award and several of the district court’s rulings and contend that plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the operative statute of limitations. Finally, defendants aver that these cumulative errors violated their right to due process. We disagree on all grounds and affirm. … “The jury found defendants liable on every count, except for the MHTVCA claim against Lucille, and rejected defendants’ counterclaim. The district court entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs, awarding $105,000 in compensatory damages, plus prejudgment interest, $450,000 in punitive damages, as well as $803,352.50 in attorneys’ fees and $101,281.20 in costs. … “Defendants first argue that the jury’s award of punitive damages violates due process. … We consider three ‘guideposts’ when evaluating whether a punitive damages award offends due process: (1) the degree of reprehensibility of defendants’ conduct; (2) the punitive award’s ratio to the compensatory award; and (3) sanctions for comparable misconduct. … “In sum, we hold that the award of punitive damages comports with due process. … “Next, defendants assert that the district court erred by denying defendants’ motion for a mistrial, limiting defendants’ witnesses at trial, denying defendants’ motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, and permitting time-barred claims to proceed. Finally, defendants argue that these errors cumulatively deprived defendants of a fair trial in violation of due process. We find no error. … “We affirm.” Gomez-Echeverria v. Purpose Point Harvesting, LLC; MiLW No. 01-111113, 14 pages; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; Griffin, J., joined by Batchelder, J., Mathis, J.; on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids; Robert A. Alvarez for appellant; Jessica Mugler for appellee. Source link

September 24, 2026

Congress Required Assessment of State ICWA Compliance. It Didn’t Tie Shortfalls to Corrective Plans or Funding Consequences – Turtle Talk

Congress Required Assessment of State ICWA Compliance. It Didn’t Tie Shortfalls to Corrective Plans or Funding Consequences – Turtle Talk

In my earlier post today, I wrote that neither S. 4976 nor S. 4638 would require HHS to evaluate each state’s compliance with ICWA. That’s true of the bills, but it leaves out an important piece of existing law. Congress has already required federal assessment and reporting. 42 U.S.C. § 628d directed HHS to develop an ICWA technical assistance plan by October 1, 2025. The plan must use data sufficient to assess state performance on identifying Indian children, notifying Tribes, transferring cases to Tribal court, and complying with ICWA’s requirements for placements and termination of parental rights. Every two years, HHS must report to Congress on state compliance and federal efforts to improve it. That framework isn’t fully operating, however. In a report dated July 15, 2026, ACF described the plan as still under development. As of September 23, I couldn’t locate a published plan or an announcement that it had been completed. Existing federal data is limited. States currently report only four categories of ICWA-related information through AFCARS, and ACF has identified serious reliability problems. A 2024 rule will substantially expand that collection, but states won’t begin collecting the new data until October 1, 2028. The first files containing the new data aren’t due to ACF until May 15, 2029. That leaves the central gap identified by the Commission on Native Children. The Commission didn’t only ask for better information. Recommendation 2 called for improvement plans when states fall short and for progress toward ICWA benchmarks to matter for federal child welfare funding. Current law doesn’t create that system. States must describe their ICWA measures in their Title IV-B plans, and HHS has general authority to enforce compliance with approved plans. In its 2024 AFCARS rule, however, ACF stated that it has no jurisdiction to impose consequences on states under ICWA, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs has told ACF that it has no role in enforcing state compliance either. The law establishes no substantive ICWA performance benchmarks and doesn’t require ICWA-specific corrective plans or funding consequences when a state falls short. That doesn’t mean any funding penalty would improve compliance. Justice Anne McKeig of the Minnesota Supreme Court told ACF in a 2025 comment that Minnesota law allows the state to reduce federal funding to counties it finds didn’t fully comply with ICWA in the preceding year, sometimes because of a technicality outside the county’s control. She warned that the penalty can deprive a struggling county of the money it needs to provide active efforts. The Commission proposed a more calibrated approach that includes improvement plans with benchmarks, with progress tied either to continued federal funding or to additional incentive funds. ACF’s consultation report records Tribal recommendations for annual state reporting and actionable improvement plans. It also records a recommendation that states failing to consult with Tribes not receive administrative costs. ACF didn’t commit to those measures. Ultimately, neither S. 4976 nor S. 4638 closes this gap. Congress has required the federal government to identify where states are falling short, but it hasn’t created the improvement and accountability system the Commission recommended. An immediate opportunity ACF is accepting written comments from Tribes for its 2026 Annual Tribal Consultation until 5:00 p.m. ET this Friday, September 25. Comments can be sent to [email protected] with the subject line “ACF Tribal Consultation Testimony.” Tribal Nations could ask ACF to publish the § 628d plan, state whether and when it was completed, and explain how it will assess and respond to state noncompliance before the expanded AFCARS data become available. Resources The Way Forward: Report of the Commission on Native Children 42 U.S.C. § 628d ACF Tribal Consultation Report (dated July 15, 2026) Public Comments, Regulations.gov Docket ACF-2025-0038 ACF’s 2024 AFCARS Final Rule ACF Annual Tribal Consultation Notice Source link

September 23, 2026

Featured in

AI Lawyer Finder

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