Stephen Markman
Stephen Markman was a justice of the Michigan Supreme Court. He served on the court from 1999 to 2021. Justice Markman was appointed to this court by Governor John Engler (R), effective October 1, 1999. In 2004 and 2012 he was re-elected for eight-year terms. He retired when his term expired on January 1, 2021.[1] Markman served as chief justice from January 2017 to January 2019.
Markman was a judge on the Michigan Court of Appeals from 1995 to 1999. For more information on his career, click here.
In October 2012, Stanford University political science professors attempted to determine the partisan ideology of state supreme court justices. Their model indicated that Markman had a conservative ideological leaning. Click here for more details on the study.
In 2008, Markman authored a piece in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy about the role of the court. He said the Michigan Supreme Court's priority was "the proper exercise of the 'judicial power,' to read the law evenhandedly and give it meaning by assessing its words, its grammar and syntax, its context, and its legislative purpose." Click here for more information on Markman's approach to the law.
Education
Markman received his undergraduate degree from Duke University and his J.D. from the University of Cincinnati.[2]
Career
- 1999 - 2021: Justice, Michigan Supreme Court
- 2017-2019: Chief justice
- 1995-1999: Judge, Michigan Court of Appeals
- 1993-1995: Attorney, Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone
- 1989-1993: United States Attorney (Michigan)
- 1985-1989: Assistant Attorney General of the United States
- 1978-1985: Chief Counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution and Deputy Chief Counsel of U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee
Markman has also served as a professor of constitutional law at Hillsdale College.[1][3]
Awards and associations
Justice Markman is a Fellow of the Michigan Bar Foundation, a Master of the Bench of the American Inns of Court, and a member of the One Hundred Club.[1]
Elections
2012
Markman was one of seven candidates running for two seats on the Michigan Supreme Court in the November 2012 election. He received the highest percentage of the vote, winning 23.1%.[4][5] Though Michigan judicial elections are technically nonpartisan, he was nominated as a candidate at the Republican Party convention.[6][7]
- See also: Michigan judicial elections, 2012
Endorsements
- Michigan Chamber of Commerce.[8]
Approach to the law
Markman authored a piece entitled "Resisting the Ratchet" for the Summer 2008 volume of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.[9] In it, he speaks at length about the court and its role.
"...[A] majority of [the Michigan Supreme Court], four of its seven justices...are committed to the judicial values that are often identified with the Federalist Society - in particular, a commitment to giving faithful meaning to the words of the law and to operating within the restraints of a constitution in which the separation of powers is fundamental."
"That is, what most distinguishes the Michigan Supreme Court from other even conservative state courts of last resort has been its unwillingness to institutionalize the precedents of earlier justices who, like Justice William Douglas on the United States Supreme Court, expressed their preference 'to make, rather than to follow precedent.'"
"Instead, the Michigan Supreme Court has set as its priority the proper exercise of the 'judicial power,' to read the law evenhandedly and give it meaning by assessing its words, its grammar and syntax, its context, and its legislative purpose. The court's dominant premise has been on 'getting the law right' - moving toward the best and most faithful interpretation of the law - rather than reflexively acquiescing in prior case law that essentially reflected little more than the personal preferences of predecessor justices."
Noteworthy cases
Midwest Institute of Health, PLLC v. Whitmer
Midwest Institute of Health, PLLC v. Whitmer: On October 2, 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court issued an opinion stating that Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) did not have authority to issue pandemic-related executive orders that were in effect past April 30, 2020—the date past which the legislature denied extending emergency and disaster declarations. Justice Stephen Markman wrote the majority opinion.
Midwest Institute of Health, PLLC; Wellston Medical Center, PLLC; Primary Health Services, PC; and Jeffery Gulick filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan challenging Executive Order 2020-17. The order, since rescinded, placed restrictions on nonessential medical and dental procedures. Whitmer was able to issue executive orders instituting restrictions amid the pandemic because she declared states of emergency and disaster. She said she had authority to extend those declarations without the legislature's approval based on the Emergency Powers of the Governor Act (EPGA) of 1945 and the Emergency Management Act (EMA) of 1976.[10][11]
The district court asked the state supreme court to consider two questions: 1) Whether Whitmer had authority under those laws to issue or renew pandemic-related orders after April 30, 2020 (after which the legislature denied renewing declarations of states of emergency or disaster); and 2) Whether either of those laws violated the state Constitution.
Markman wrote for the majority that "the Governor lacked the authority to declare a ‘state of emergency’ or a ‘state of disaster’ under the EMA after April 30, 2020, on the basis of the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, we conclude that the EPGA is in violation of the Constitution of our state because it purports to delegate to the executive branch the legislative powers of state government— including its plenary police powers— and to allow the exercise of such powers indefinitely."
The Detroit Free Press's Dave Boucher and Todd Spangler wrote, "The court's opinion throws into question dozens of orders issued by Whitmer related to the coronavirus pandemic, appearing to void them. At the same time, however, since the decision came as a response to questions submitted to the court by a federal judge — and not as part of a state case before it — it wasn't immediately clear what would happen next or when it would take effect."[12]
Whitmer said the following in response to the court's opinion:[13]
| “ |
Today’s Supreme Court ruling, handed down by a narrow majority of Republican justices, is deeply disappointing, and I vehemently disagree with the court’s interpretation of the Michigan Constitution. Right now, every state and the federal government have some form of declared emergency. With this decision, Michigan will become the sole outlier at a time when the Upper Peninsula is experiencing rates of COVID infection not seen in our state since April. It is important to note that this ruling does not take effect for at least 21 days, and until then, my emergency declaration and orders retain the force of law. Furthermore, after 21 days, many of the responsive measures I have put in place to control the spread of the virus will continue under alternative sources of authority that were not at issue in today’s ruling.[14] |
” |
Denial of gay partner benefits
In a 5-2 ruling, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that Michigan's 2004 ban against gay marriage extends to the University of Michigan and public-sector employers in gay employee benefits. Specifically, it disallows domestic-partner policies. The case was heard before the court in the spring of 2008. Justice Stephen Markman wrote the majority opinion. Dissenting Justices Michael Cavanagh and Marilyn Jean Kelly said "the constitutional amendment prohibits nothing more than same-sex marriages or similar unions.[15]
Ballot petition signatures
The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that regardless of signers' belief in what they were signing, an anti-affirmative action proposal will go on the November 2008 ballot. Justice Markman wrote:
The signers of these petitions did not sign the oral representations made to them by circulators; rather they signed written petitions that contained the actual language of the (ballot question). In carrying out the responsibilities of self-government, 'we the people' of Michigan are responsible for our own actions...[a person who signed the petition] cannot blame others when he signs a petition without knowing what it says.
Political ideology
In October 2012, political science professors Adam Bonica and Michael Woodruff of Stanford University attempted to determine the partisan ideology of state supreme court justices. They created a scoring system in which a score above 0 indicated a more conservative-leaning ideology, while scores below 0 were more liberal.
Markman received a campaign finance score of 0.86, indicating a conservative ideological leaning. This was more conservative than the average score of 0.05 that justices received in Michigan.
The study was based on data from campaign contributions by the judges themselves, the partisan leaning of those who contributed to the judges' campaigns, or, in the absence of elections, the ideology of the appointing body (governor or legislature). This study was not a definitive label of a justice, but an academic summary of various relevant factors.[17]
See also
External links
- Michigan Supreme Court
- Wikipedia: Stephen Markman
- Clarifying “Extremism: It’s more than just politics," by Stephen Markman
- LSJ.com, Voter Guide:Stephen Markman
- LenConnect.com, "Supreme Court candidates Markman, Markey, O'Brien address Lenawee 9.12 Forum," June 15, 2012
- Livingston Daily, "Editorial misrepresented position of justice, July 26, 2010 (dead link)
- ParidisePost.com, "Our constitution is at risk," June 1, 2010
- Detroit Metro Times, "OpEd: So much for free speech," August 9, 2006
- The Wall Street Journal, "Trial Lawyers Target Three Michigan Judges Up for Election," May 8, 2000
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Michigan Supreme Court, Justice Stephen J. Markman
- ↑ Martindale.com, Judge Profile:Stephen J. Markman
- ↑ Project Vote Smart, Justice Stephen J. Markman (MI)
- ↑ Michigan Department of State, Official 2012 General Election Results: Supreme Court
- ↑ LenConnect.com, "Supreme Court candidates Markman, Markey, O'Brien address Lenawee 9.12 Forum," June 15, 2012
- ↑ Tagolden.com, "2012 Candidates for the Michigan Supreme Court," accessed March 10, 2014
- ↑ M Live, "Republican candidates for Michigan Supreme Court argue their case in Muskegon," October 23, 2012
- ↑ Legal Newsline, "Mich. Chamber endorses three for state SC," September 18, 2012
- ↑ Harvard JLPP
- ↑ State of Michigan Office of the Governor," "Executive Order No. 2020-67," April 30, 2020
- ↑ State of Michigan Office of the Governor," "Executive Order No. 2020-68," April 30, 2020
- ↑ The Detroit Free Press, "Michigan Supreme Court rules against Whitmer on emergency powers but effect unclear," October 2, 2020
- ↑ WLNS, Governor Whitmer responds to Supreme Court ruling that she exceeded her power during the pandemic," October 2, 2020
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Inside Higher Ed, "Michigan Ruling Bars Domestic Partner Benefits," May 8, 2008
- ↑ Court Allows Anti-affirmative Action Plan on Ballot
- ↑ Stanford University, "State Supreme Court Ideology and 'New Style' Judicial Campaigns," October 31, 2012
Federal courts:
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals • U.S. District Court: Eastern District of Michigan, Western District of Michigan • U.S. Bankruptcy Court: Eastern District of Michigan, Western District of Michigan
State courts:
Michigan Supreme Court • Michigan Court of Appeals • Michigan Circuit Court • Michigan Court of Claims • Michigan District Courts • Michigan Municipal Courts • Michigan Probate Courts
State resources:
Courts in Michigan • Michigan judicial elections • Judicial selection in Michigan
