In November, Michigan voters will choose two justices to serve on the state Supreme Court. Michigan Public's Morning Edition is featuring interviews with the six candidates.
Judge Michael Warren has served on Michigan’s Sixth Judicial Circuit Court in Oakland County since 2002. He also teaches constitutional law at Cooley Law School. Warren is also a past member of the state Board of Education, where he served from 1999 to 2002.
Warren spoke with Michigan Public's Morning Edition host Doug Tribou.
Doug Tribou: You've served on the Oakland County Circuit Court for nearly 24 years. Would you describe your legal philosophy and the approach you take to cases that come before the court?
Michael Warren: Absolutely. I've tried over 400 jury trials, rendered thousands of sentences, and issued thousands of orders. And through all of that, my intention is to ensure that I apply the law fairly and impartially. And I understand and respect that the role of a court and a judge is not to legislate from the bench, but to simply apply the law, the fair, common understanding of the law at the time that it was enacted or ratified by the people or the Legislature.
DT: Is there a case or two from some recent years that has stuck with you as an example of how you put your philosophy into practice in the courtroom?
MW: So, I'll give you an example. The Legislature passed an expungement law, which allows criminal defendants to expunge their records, and it used to be extraordinarily difficult to do that. Personally, I don't think I would have voted for the law as it was enacted. I would have had stricter limits to what could be expunged. But that's not my job. The Legislature has moved forward with that revision. You know, I will say on the record sometimes that I would not have allowed if I was in the Legislature, I probably wouldn't have allowed you to have this opportunity. But you meet the criteria. You've changed your life around, you've moved forward in a very constructive and positive way. And therefore, I'm granting the expungement.
That happens basically every day I'm on the bench where there's a policy, a rule of evidence that I personally might not have agreed with. And I don't run around and say, I'm going to try to subvert the binding law. I'm going to apply the law as I find it to be applicable at the time. So I can't give you one or two cases, but I can give you thousands. So there you go.
DT: Supreme Court candidates appear on the ballot without any party affiliation listed. However, the candidates for the court are nominated by political parties. Democratic nominees and appointees currently hold a six-to-one majority on the Supreme Court.
You have been nominated by two parties, the Michigan Republican Party and the Libertarian Party of Michigan. If that's not a first in Michigan politics, it's certainly very, very rare. Could you share how that came together?
MW: So first off, I do want to emphasize that we do have a very unbalanced Supreme Court. It is six-to-one, Democrat-nominated majority. I've been nominated by the Republican Party. I have not actually been nominated by the Libertarian Party because the law does not allow — it's called fusion voting. They do not allow a candidate to be nominated by more than one political party.
But the Libertarians did not nominate anyone and instead endorsed me only. You're right, that it is historical. That's never happened before. I don't like to say I'm proud because pride is the first sin. But I'm very, very excited to be able to make that accomplishment.
DT: Libertarians and Republicans are more in alignment than, say, Republicans and Democrats often, but they are not always in alignment. Did you have any concerns about having the support of both?
MW: You're right. They're kind of like cousins. And there are many things that the Libertarians support that the Republicans support. And then there's other places where they diverge. And the great thing about being a jurist is the policy differences that the Republican Party and the Libertarian Party may have is not a realm that I need to get into because my job is, again, fidelity to the Constitution and to the law and to ensure that the law is enforced as is passed by the Legislature.
DT: You attended the University of Michigan Law School and were a clerk for former Supreme Court Justice Dorothy Comstock Riley in the 1990s. And you later worked for a major private firm, and now you're a circuit court judge. So you've seen the state judicial system as a whole from a number of vantage points.
The state Supreme Court plays a major role in how the entire court system functions and provides guidance on practical changes and reforms in the court system. If you're elected, what functional issues in the courts would you hope to address?
MW: Five of the seven justices on the Supreme Court were not judges until they got on the Supreme Court. So they're not there because they have presided over thousands of cases; they've proved their acumen and their judicial philosophy. They're there for other reasons. And so it's really important that that experience gap is showing in the Supreme Court.
So I understand how, practically, the rules of evidence are applied, how civil procedure is implemented, criminal procedure. The Supreme Court also maintains attorney-grievance disciplinary proceedings. The ethical considerations. Judicial tenure commission. Admission to the bar. So there's a whole slew of administrative processes and procedures that the Supreme Court's in charge of. And it's difficult to do those things if you've never tried a case as a judge.
DT: I would like to follow up on something you mentioned there. You said that the inexperience of the current justices on the Supreme Court in terms of not having been judges prior to their tenure on the Supreme Court, that their inexperience is showing. How so?
MW: Well, I'll give you one kind of mundane example, but it is extraordinarily important to how we function as a court. After COVID, there was a push by the Supreme Court to have as many remote proceedings as possible. They also passed a 12-factor test about whether or not a case or a particular part of a case should be conducted in person or remotely.
They're demanding 500 judges across the state, on every single case, go through 12 factors and then decide whether or not it should be in person or remote. And I just think that if you were a judge that had tried hundreds of cases and have issued thousands of orders and listened to motions and rendered sentences, you'd understand that you don't need a 12-factor test to know what can be done in person and what can be done remotely.
DT: Well, Judge Warren, thank you very much for your time this morning.
MW: You're very welcome. Thank you. God bless you. And God bless America.
Editor's note: Quotes in this article have been edited for length and clarity. You can play the full audio of this interview near the top of this page.
