Michigan begins 2026 with New Laws

Michigan begins 2026 with New Laws

Jan 2, 2026 | Michigan Laws, Michigan News

Michigan’s 2026 legal landscape includes major tax reforms—most notably the gas‑tax increase from 31¢ to 52.4¢ per gallon—along with cannabis tax changes, wage increases, consumer protections, and transparency laws.

Michigan begins 2026 with a slate of new laws affecting wages, taxes, cannabis, consumer protections, and entertainment ticket sales. These changes—signed by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer after passage by the Michigan Legislature—touch nearly every household and business in the state.

Summary

Michigan’s 2026 legal landscape includes increases to the minimum wage, higher cannabis taxes, new rules targeting ticket‑buying bots, expanded consumer protections, and updated safety requirements for childcare centers. These laws were passed during the 2024–2025 legislative session and signed by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, taking effect January 1, 2026.

Background

Michigan lawmakers passed a relatively small number of bills in 2025—just 74 in total—but several major policy changes were included in that group. Gov. Whitmer signed 36 of those bills in late December 2025, finalizing the measures now in effect for 2026

Key laws include:

  • A minimum wage increase to $13.73/hour, with proportional increases for tipped workers and minors.

  • A 24% cannabis excise tax, raising costs for recreational marijuana users and directing revenue toward infrastructure and public programs.

  • The “Taylor Swift Bills,” banning automated bots from mass‑purchasing event tickets and reselling them at inflated prices.

  • New consumer protections for insurance buyers and entertainment customers.

  • Safety upgrades for daycare center door‑locking systems.

Opinions

Supporters argue these laws modernize Michigan’s economy and protect consumers. Labor advocates praise the wage increase as necessary to keep pace with inflation. Infrastructure groups support the cannabis and gas‑tax adjustments, which direct revenue toward road funding.

Critics, however, warn that higher cannabis taxes may push consumers back to the illicit market. Some business groups argue that wage increases could strain small employers. Ticket‑resale platforms oppose the bot‑ban legislation, claiming it may be difficult to enforce.

What’s at Stake

These laws affect:

  • Household budgets, through wage increases and higher cannabis and gas taxes.

  • Small businesses, which must adjust payroll and compliance practices.

  • Consumers, who gain new protections against unfair ticketing and insurance practices.

  • Public safety, through childcare facility upgrades.

  • State revenue, which will shift as new taxes take effect.

The broader stakes involve Michigan’s attempt to balance economic growth, consumer fairness, and regulatory modernization.

Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How

  • Who made the decisions? The Michigan Legislature passed the bills; Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed them into law.

  • What happened? A package of new laws—including wage increases, tax changes, consumer protections, and ticket‑bot bans—took effect.

  • When? January 1, 2026.

  • Where? Statewide across Michigan.

  • Why were these laws enacted? To address economic conditions, protect consumers, increase revenue for infrastructure, and modernize regulatory systems.

  • How were they approved? Each measure was introduced as a bill, voted on by both chambers of the Legislature, and signed by the Governor. None of the laws were enacted by ballot initiative; all passed through the standard legislative process.

See more laws and tax hikes here

Komorn Law, founded in 1993, brings decades of seasoned experience to Michigan’s most complex criminal and regulatory matters, including the evolving cannabis framework from the MMMA to today’s MRTMA landscape. The firm represents clients facing controlled‑substance offenses, DUI and drug‑related driving charges, firearm violations, property crimes, resisting or obstructing, and the most serious allegations such as manslaughter and homicide. With a proven record in courts across Michigan and the federal system, Komorn Law delivers strategic, relentless advocacy when the stakes are highest. To work with a firm that truly refuses to back down, call  248-357-2550. 

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the new minimum wage in Michigan for 2026?

A: The minimum wage is now $13.73/hour, with increases for tipped workers and minors.

Q: How much is the new cannabis tax?

A: Recreational marijuana purchases now include a 24% excise tax, raising overall retail prices.

Q: What are the “Taylor Swift Bills”?

A: These laws prohibit automated bots from buying large quantities of event tickets, aiming to prevent inflated resale prices.

Q: Did Gov. Whitmer sign all these laws?

A: Yes. The Governor signed dozens of bills in late 2025, finalizing the laws now in effect.

Q: Were these laws voted on individually?

A: Yes. Each law passed through the Legislature with its own vote before being signed.

More

Michigan Cannabis Tax Fraud Cases Are Rising

Michigan Cannabis Tax Fraud Cases Are Rising

Hands up CaponeMichigan’s regulated cannabis industry is in a very different place than it was when medical marijuana and adult-use legalization were the primary battlegrounds. As prices compress, margins disappear, and tax burdens increase, enforcement doesn’t...

read more
Deadlocked Jury – What does it mean?

Deadlocked Jury – What does it mean?

A deadlocked jury is often called a hung jury—A deadlocked jury—often called a hung jury—occurs when jurors cannot reach the unanimous (or legally required) agreement needed to deliver a verdict. In criminal cases, most jurisdictions require unanimity. When the jury...

read more
Social Security Scams – What to Know

Social Security Scams – What to Know

The Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) have issued several warnings about ongoing Social Security scams and continue to advise caution to the public. Here are some of the popular Social Security scams to watch out for in...

read more
Michigan Drivers Face Higher Gas Tax in 2026

Michigan Drivers Face Higher Gas Tax in 2026

Keep Pushing.Summary Michigan’s fuel‑tax structure will undergo a major statutory shift on January 1, 2026, raising the state gas tax from 31 cents to approximately 52.4 cents per gallon. The change eliminates the 6% sales tax on fuel and replaces it with a higher,...

read more
Marijuana Under Fire in Michigan

Marijuana Under Fire in Michigan

Nov 28, 2025 | Michigan Laws, Michigan News

Marijuana in Michigan is facing renewed challenges as lawmakers push for higher taxes and regulatory changes that critics argue undermine the voter-approved legalization of 2018. Court battles, legislative maneuvers, and industry pushback highlight the tension between public will and government control.

Summary: The Great Green Tax Grab

Michigan’s vibrant, multi-billion dollar cannabis market, born from the will of the people, is facing a major crisis. Just years after voters approved the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA) in 2018, state lawmakers are being accused of attempting an end-run around the Constitution.

The flashpoint is the new 24% wholesale excise tax, hastily introduced in late 2025, which, when stacked atop existing taxes, pushes Michigan toward becoming one of the most heavily taxed cannabis states in the nation.

The industry is crying foul, arguing this massive tax hike illegally amends the voter-initiated law and threatens to crash the legal market, driving consumers and revenue back to the illicit economy. Legal challenges are now underway, placing the fate of Michigan’s cannabis experiment in the hands of the courts.

Background and Chronological Timeline: From Referendum to “Road” Tax.

The current controversy is rooted in the unique status of the MRTMA, a law enacted directly by Michigan citizens, which affords it special constitutional protection against legislative meddling.

Specifically, the Michigan Constitution requires that any subsequent amendment to a voter-initiated law must be passed by a three-fourths supermajority in both legislative chambers.

 

Date Event/Law/Case Detail/Significance
Nov 6, 2018 MRTMA (Proposal 1) Approved Voters approve the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (Initiated Law 1 of 2018), legalizing adult-use cannabis (21+). The law established a 10% retail excise tax and a 6% sales tax.
Dec 6, 2018 MRTMA takes effect Personal possession and cultivation become legal under state law.
Dec 2019 First legal adult-use sales begin Commercial sales commence, launching the state’s regulated industry.
2020 Public Act 192 of 2020 (Clean Slate Act) (LMFAO) Legislature passes a law creating a rebuttable presumption for the expungement of misdemeanor marijuana convictions related to activity now legal under the MRTMA.
2021 Brightmoore Gardens v Marijuana Regulatory Agency The Michigan Court of Appeals largely upheld the right of municipalities to prohibit or strictly control cannabis businesses, reinforcing local control over licensing.
2022 Naturale & Co. v City of Hamtramck A federal court case highlights the ongoing tension between local municipal control and state licensing, resulting in a favorable decision for a cannabis applicant under different facts than Brightmoore.
Oct 2025 Comprehensive Road Funding Tax Act (HB 4951) Signed Governor Whitmer signs the bill imposing a 24% wholesale excise tax on cannabis transfers, set to take effect January 1, 2026. This was passed without the 3/4 supermajority required to amend the MRTMA.
Oct/Nov 2025 Michigan Cannabis Industry Association v. Eubanks (Lawsuit) MCIA and other operators file suit in the Court of Claims to block the 24% wholesale tax, arguing it is an unconstitutional indirect amendment to the voter-initiated MRTMA.

What’s at Stake: Law, Taxes, and the Market’s Future

The current legal and legislative battle centers on three critical concepts: voter supremacy, punitive taxation, and market stability.

Lawmakers vs. Law-Makers (The Voters)

The key legal hurdle for the state is the constitutional protection afforded to the MRTMA. Since the new tax bill—the Comprehensive Road Funding Tax Act—did not garner the necessary three-fourths supermajority, its legality rests entirely on the argument that it is a new tax and not an amendment to the original 2018 law.

  • The Industry’s Stance: Opponents argue the wholesale tax fundamentally changes the commercial taxation structure established by the voters (a 10% retail excise tax). By imposing a new, massive tax burden on the supply chain, the Legislature is frustrating the very purpose of the MRTMA—to replace the illicit market with a legal, regulated, and reasonably priced one. This frustration, they contend, constitutes an illegal, indirect amendment, usurping the power of the electorate.

  • The State’s Stance: State attorneys contend the tax is imposed under the Legislature’s general authority to levy taxes. They claim the MRTMA only created a targeted retail tax and did not prohibit the application of other taxes.

The Problem of Over-Taxing

Which some “people” can never figure out doesn’t work toward growth.

When the new 24% wholesale excise tax takes effect, it stacks on top of the existing 10% retail excise tax and the standard 6% sales tax. The combined effective tax rate on cannabis transactions would surge to approximately 40%, making Michigan’s marijuana among the most heavily taxed in the country.

Pros and Cons of the Tax Hike

 

Pro (For the State/Public) Con (For the Industry/Consumer)
Infrastructure Funding: Generates an estimated (also trolling you–>) $420 million annually for road and bridge repairs, a priority under the “Fix the Damn Roads Scam” initiative. Black Market Revival: A high combined tax creates a massive price differential, incentivizing consumers to return to cheaper, unregulated, and untested illicit sources. (More money to run the courts and keep the circle of justice office lights lit)
Broadened Tax Base: Diversifies state revenue, avoiding reliance solely on retail sales for funding public works. Market Collapse & Insolvency: Pushes small operators and vertically integrated businesses, already struggling with plummeting wholesale prices, toward financial failure.
Enforcement Incentive: Provides more funding which could potentially be used by the Cannabis Regulatory Agency (CRA) to crack down on the illicit market. Undermining Voter Intent: Legislatively frustrating the MRTMA’s core goal of safe, affordable legal access by making legal products excessively expensive.

Summary

The fight over Michigan’s cannabis tax is a high-stakes constitutional showdown. It pits the immediate need for infrastructure funding against the fundamental principle of direct democracy and the long-term health of a legitimate, multi-billion dollar industry.

If the courts uphold the new wholesale tax, the financial stability of licensed cannabis businesses will be severely jeopardized, and the state risks undermining the success of its own legalization effort by creating an uncompetitive legal market. The outcome will set a critical precedent for the balance of power between Michigan’s Legislature and its citizens.

Here are some interesting law links and articles

Established in 1993, Komorn Law  has decades of experience navigating the complexities of Michigan’s cannabis landscape, from the early days of medical marijuana (MMMA) to the regulatory challenges and constitutional fights of the current adult-use market (MRTMA).

As Michigan’s cannabis community confronts aggressive tax hikes, legislative attempts to rewrite the people’s laws, and ongoing criminal charges stemming from the state’s Public Health Code, the need for experienced legal counsel is paramount. Komorn Law has the expertise and deep institutional knowledge to fight your case in a court of law, from the district to federal court systems, challenging not only individual charges but also the regulatory schemes and constitutional infringements that threaten the industry and individual rights. When you’re ready to hire a lawyer who hates to lose, call our office  248-357-2550. 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: Is the new 24% wholesale tax currently in effect?

A: The Comprehensive Road Funding Tax Act (HB 4951) imposing the 24% wholesale tax was signed into law in October 2025 and is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2026, unless blocked by the courts. Lawsuits filed by the Michigan Cannabis Industry Association are seeking an injunction to stop its implementation, arguing the tax is unconstitutional.

Q: How does the new tax compare to other states?

A: If implemented, the new 24% wholesale tax, combined with the existing 10% retail excise tax and 6% sales tax, would give Michigan one of the highest effective cannabis tax rates in the United States, comparable to or exceeding states that have historically struggled with high illicit market participation due to excessive taxes.

Q: What is the primary legal argument against the tax hike?

A: The main legal challenge is that the tax constitutes an illegal, indirect amendment to the voter-approved Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA). Amending the MRTMA requires a three-fourths supermajority vote from the Legislature, a threshold the tax bill failed to meet.

Q: Did the MRTMA allow for expungement of past marijuana offenses?

A: The MRTMA itself did not mandate expungement, but Michigan’s Legislature later passed Public Act 192 of 2020 (part of the Clean Slate Act), which created a clear, rebuttable presumption for the expungement of misdemeanor marijuana convictions for activities that are no longer considered a crime after the MRTMA’s passage.

Q: What is the difference between the 10% excise tax and the new 24% wholesale tax?

A: The original 10% excise tax is applied at the retail level (paid by the consumer at the point of sale). The new 24% wholesale tax is applied further up the supply chain, at the wholesale level (paid when a cultivator or processor sells or transfers product to a retailer).

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

More Articles

More

Another look at People v Soto (MRTMA Defense Denied)

Another look at People v Soto (MRTMA Defense Denied)

Another look at People v. Soto: Application of Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act to Felony ChargesMichigan's cannabis landscape is evolving rapidly, marked by a nuanced exploration of the People v. Soto case and its implications for the Michigan Regulation and...

read more
Oakland County Judge Faces Judicial Tenure Complaint

Oakland County Judge Faces Judicial Tenure Complaint

Oakland County Judge Faces Judicial Tenure Complaint After Removal from Felony CasesAn Oakland County District Court judge, Kristen Hartig of Troy's 52-4 District Court, is now facing a formal complaint from the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission (JTC) following her...

read more
Judicial Accountability in Michigan for Judges

Judicial Accountability in Michigan for Judges

Maintaining public trust in the judiciary is paramount to a functioning legal system. In Michigan, several mechanisms exist to ensure judicial accountability, holding judges responsible for their conduct both on and off the bench. These safeguards are primarily...

read more
Seven News Story Summaries – September 2025 (Part 1)

Seven News Story Summaries – September 2025 (Part 1)

Sep 16, 2025 | Michigan News, Michigan Supreme Court

Seven Summaries of Seven News Stories

Governor Issues Executive Directive on AI Use in State Agencies

Between September 1–15, 2025, the Governor of Michigan issued an executive directive regulating the use of artificial intelligence in state agencies. The directive mandates transparency, ethical guidelines, and public reporting for AI systems used in decision-making processes.

 READ MORE

FAQs

Q: What does the directive require? A: Agencies must disclose AI use and follow ethical standards.

Q: Is this a law? A: No, it’s an executive directive with binding effect on state agencies.

Q: Where can the directive be found? A: It will be published in the Michigan Register and agency websites.

Child Welfare Appellate Clinic Wins Court of Appeals Case

On September 2, 2025, Michigan Law’s Child Welfare Appellate Clinic secured a favorable ruling in the Michigan Court of Appeals. The case involved parental rights termination and procedural fairness. The court emphasized the need for clear evidence and proper notice in such proceedings.

READ MORE

FAQs

Q: What was the key issue in the case? A: Whether the parent received adequate notice and a fair hearing.

Q: What precedent does this set? A: It reinforces procedural safeguards in child welfare cases.

Q: Who represented the parent? A: Michigan Law students under faculty supervision.

Michigan Law School Hosts Conference on Gender Apartheid and International Law

On September 4, 2025, the University of Michigan Law School hosted a legal conference focused on using international law to combat gender apartheid. Legal scholars and practitioners discussed treaty enforcement, human rights litigation, and comparative legal frameworks.

FAQs

Q: Is this related to Michigan law? A: Indirectly, through academic exploration of international legal principles.

Q: Who attended the conference? A: Legal scholars, students, and human rights advocates.

Q: Will there be follow-up actions? A: The school plans to publish proceedings and policy recommendations.

Environmental Lawsuit Filed Over Microsoft Water Use

On September 13, 2025, an environmental group filed suit in Michigan seeking disclosure of projected water usage by a planned Microsoft data center in Mount Pleasant. The plaintiffs argue that the public has a right to know how much Lake Michigan water will be diverted and whether it complies with conservation laws.

Environmental advocates are suing the city of Racine to force the release of information on projected water use in the first phase of Microsoft’s $3.3 billion data center campus in Mount Pleasant.

The complaint filed Monday 

READ MORE

FAQs

Q: What is the legal basis for the lawsuit? A: Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act and environmental protection statutes.

Q: Is Microsoft named in the suit? A: The suit targets local agencies responsible for approving water use.

Q: What are the plaintiffs seeking? A: Full disclosure of water usage estimates and environmental impact assessments.

Continued… Here’s the full paper trail surrounding the FOIA dispute and water usage data for Microsoft’s Mount Pleasant data center, including the lawsuit, city response, and released records.

FOIA Request Timeline and Lawsuit

  • In February 2025, Milwaukee Riverkeeper submitted a public records request to the City of Racine seeking projected water usage data for the Microsoft data center.
  • The city delayed responding, citing the need to review contractual obligations with Microsoft.
  • On September 15, 2025, Midwest Environmental Advocates filed a lawsuit in Racine County Circuit Court on behalf of Milwaukee Riverkeeper, alleging unlawful delay under Wisconsin’s public records law.

City of Racine’s Response and Record Release

  • On September 17, 2025, the City of Racine released the requested documents and issued a public statement reaffirming its commitment to transparency.
  • The city acknowledged the delay was due to coordination with Microsoft to avoid violating contractual agreements.
  • Racine Mayor Cory Mason stated: “Open and transparent government is not optional; it is essential to public trust.”

The official media release is available as a PDF from the .

Water Usage Records and Environmental Impact

  • The records show Microsoft is permitted to use up to 2.8 million gallons of Lake Michigan water annually in phase one, with future expansion potentially reaching 8.4 million gallons per year.
  • Wastewater discharge could reach 243,000 gallons per day.
  • Microsoft has stated that its cooling systems aim to minimize water use through closed-loop technology.

Detailed projections and environmental concerns are covered in this report from the .

FAQs

Q: Why did the City of Racine delay releasing the records? A: Officials cited the need to review contractual obligations with Microsoft before releasing sensitive data.

Q: What legal action was taken? A: Midwest Environmental Advocates sued the city for violating Wisconsin’s public records law due to a 210-day delay.

Q: How much water will Microsoft use? A: Up to 2.8 million gallons annually in phase one, with potential expansion to 8.4 million gallons per year.

Q: Can’t they pull it from a dirty lake like Lake Erie, use it, clean it and put it back in? A:  

Michigan Court Orders Website Takedown Over Misleading Political Fundraising

On September 14, 2025, a Michigan court ordered a Massachusetts resident to remove websites that allegedly misled donors into believing they were contributing to Michigan political campaigns. The court found the sites violated consumer protection laws and misrepresented affiliations with Michigan-based entities.

READ MORE

FAQs

Q: What law was violated? A: Michigan consumer protection statutes regarding deceptive practices.

Q: Was this a criminal case? A: No, it was a civil enforcement action.

Q: Can the defendant appeal? A: Yes, the ruling may be appealed to a higher court.

Court of Claims to Hear Earmarks Lawsuit

On September 15, 2025, the Michigan Court of Claims scheduled hearings in a case questioning the constitutionality of legislative earmarks in the state budget. Plaintiffs argue that certain appropriations lack transparency and violate separation of powers. The court will examine whether these earmarks meet constitutional standards under Michigan law.

FAQs

Q: What are legislative earmarks? A: Specific budget allocations directed to projects or entities, often without competitive review.

Q: What is the legal issue? A: Whether earmarks violate Michigan’s constitutional budgetary procedures.

Q: What could happen next? A: The court may uphold, strike down, or require changes to earmark practices.

Michigan Supreme Court Revives Lawsuit Against EV Battery Plant

On September 15, 2025, the Michigan Supreme Court reinstated a lawsuit challenging the development of the Blue Oval Battery Park in Marshall. The decision reversed a lower court’s dismissal, allowing further review of environmental and zoning concerns raised by local residents and advocacy groups. The ruling does not determine the project’s legality but affirms the plaintiffs’ right to proceed with litigation.

FAQs

Q: What is the lawsuit about? A: It challenges the environmental and zoning approvals for the EV battery plant in Marshall.

Q: Does this ruling stop construction? A: No, it allows the lawsuit to continue but does not halt development.

Q: Who filed the lawsuit? A: A coalition of residents and environmental organizations.

Q: What does a $3B battery factory look like? A: Go here

Aggressive Defense in any Courtroom

For anyone facing charges –  Attorney Michael Komorn of Komorn Law PLLC brings extensive experience in criminal defense in any Michigan court, including Federal Court. Call the office to to hire us. 248-357-2550

More News

More Posts

Sextortion and Sexploitation in Michigan

Sextortion and Sexploitation in Michigan

FAQs and Laws about Sextortion and SexploitationSextortion and sexploitation are increasingly prevalent and devastating forms of digital abuse, leveraging technology to coerce, manipulate, and exploit individuals, often for sexual gratification or financial gain....

read more
Michigan State Police Bust $10 Million Marijuana Grow

Michigan State Police Bust $10 Million Marijuana Grow

Sometimes, a higher court needs to step in to ensure a lower court is properly administering justice. This powerful action is called "superintending control."Lake County, MI – In a significant enforcement action, the Michigan State Police (MSP) recently seized over...

read more
Legal Tip – Your Rights During a DUI Stop in Michigan

Legal Tip – Your Rights During a DUI Stop in Michigan

Komorn Law - Quick Legal TipsLegal Tip: Understanding Your Rights During a DUI Stop in Michigan A DUI stop can be stressful, but knowing your rights is crucial. You have the right to remain silent. You are not obligated to answer questions beyond basic identification....

read more
What do you do when you are pulled over for suspected DUI?

What do you do when you are pulled over for suspected DUI?

If you are pulled over for suspected drunk driving you are probably going to be arrested. The less you say - the better off you are in the long run. If you find yourself being pulled over for suspected DUI, ensure you pull over safely to the roadside, maintain a...

read more
What is a Franks Hearing?

What is a Franks Hearing?

What is a Frank's Hearing?A Franks hearing is a critical legal tool used when a defendant claims that police lied, exaggerated, or recklessly disregarded the truth in a search warrant affidavit. When law enforcement places its hand on the Constitution, the law...

read more

Komorn Law

Arrested? – Better Call Komorn

248-357-2550

Komorn Law
Areas of Service

We represent clients throughout the

State of Michigan and Northern Ohio.

Here are some court contacts we frequently handle cases.

Oakland County

If you are facing any legal charges in Oakland County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

Macomb County

If you are facing any legal charges in Macomb County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

Wayne County

If you are facing any legal charges in Wayne County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information for the Third Circuit Court (Wayne County):

  • Telephone Number (Civil/Family): (313) 224-5510
  • Telephone Number (Criminal): (313) 224-5261 or (313) 224-2503
  • Address (Civil/Family): 2 Woodward Avenue, Detroit, MI 48226
  • Address (Criminal): 1441 St. Antoine, Detroit, MI 48226
  • Website: https://www.3rdcc.org/

Kent County

If you are facing any legal charges in Kent County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

  • Telephone Number: (616) 632-5220
  • Address: 180 Ottawa Avenue NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49503
  • Website: Kent County

Traverse County

If you are facing any legal charges in Traverse County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information for the 13th Circuit Court (which includes Traverse County):

Monroe County

If you are facing any legal charges in Monroe County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

Another look at People v Soto (MRTMA Defense Denied)

Another look at People v Soto (MRTMA Defense Denied)

Aug 1, 2025 | Criminal Defense, Michigan Laws, Michigan Medical Marhuana Regulation, Michigan News

Another look at People v. Soto:

Application of Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act to Felony Charges

Michigan’s cannabis landscape is evolving rapidly, marked by a nuanced exploration of the People v. Soto case and its implications for the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act alongside the Public Health Code.

Introduction

The advent of the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA), MCL 333.27951 et seq., has fundamentally reshaped the legal framework surrounding cannabis in Michigan.

However, the precise boundaries of this legislative initiative, particularly its interaction with pre-existing felony provisions of the Public Health Code, MCL 333.7401 et seq., remain a subject of ongoing judicial interpretation.

The case of People of the State of Michigan v. Julia Kathleen Soto, serves as a critical illustration of this evolving legal landscape, offering significant insights for legal practitioners navigating the complexities of cannabis law in the state. 

Factual Backstory and Lower Court Proceedings

The genesis of People v. Soto dates to October 26, 2022, when law enforcement initiated an investigation predicated on intelligence from Illinois State Police concerning a substantial quantity of marijuana—approximately 85 pounds—intercepted in a rental vehicle destined for southwest Michigan.

The driver of the intercepted vehicle subsequently cooperated with authorities, facilitating a controlled delivery to Chad Boylen, who directed the shipment to Julia Kathleen Soto’s residence in Niles, Michigan.

Upon the arrival of the illicit cargo, Boylen was apprehended outside the residence, and Soto eventually exited her dwelling after law enforcement officers established a perimeter and issued commands for her egress. 

A “protective sweep” of the residence revealed large quantities of marijuana in plain view. Following this initial observation, officers secured a search warrant for the premises. Execution of the warrant led to the seizure of approximately 20 pounds of marijuana, predominantly located in what was identified as Soto’s bedroom, alongside over $10,000 in U.S. currency. The substantial volume of cannabis and the significant cash seizure were indicative of commercial distribution rather than personal use, forming the evidentiary basis for felony charges.  

In the Berrien Circuit Court (LC No. 2022-015939-FH), Soto was bound over for trial on two felony counts: (1) possession with intent to deliver between 5 and 45 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of MCL 333.7401(2)(d)(ii), and (2) maintaining a drug house, contrary to MCL 333.7405(1)(d). Soto’s defense counsel filed a motion to suppress the seized evidence, asserting an unconstitutional search, and a motion to dismiss the charges. A supplemental brief later introduced the argument that the MRTMA should preclude her prosecution for the possession-with-intent-to-deliver charge as a felony.  

Issue: Whether the evidence was seized in violation of constitutional protections, and whether the MRTMA preempts felony prosecution under the Public Health Code for large-scale possession with intent to deliver marijuana.

Result: The Circuit Court denied both motions, concluding that the evidence was admissible and that the MRTMA did not preclude the felony charges.

Michigan Court of Appeals: Interlocutory Review and Statutory Construction

Soto pursued two distinct interlocutory appeals to the Michigan Court of Appeals.

The first, Docket No. 365822, challenged the denial of her motion to suppress based on the alleged unconstitutional search. On September 11, 2023, the Court of Appeals issued an unpublished order denying leave to appeal, citing a “failure to persuade the Court of the need for immediate appellate review”.  

The second appeal, Docket No. 370138, specifically addressed the Circuit Court’s ruling on the applicability of the MRTMA. On May 24, 2024, the Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal, limiting review to the statutory interpretation issues raised.  

Issue: Whether the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA), MCL 333.27951 et seq., prevents prosecution under MCL 333.7401(2)(d)(ii) of the Public Health Code for possession with intent to deliver between 5 and 45 kilograms of marijuana.  

Result: On October 7, 2024, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a published opinion affirming the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss. The Court’s analysis hinged on a strict textual interpretation of the MRTMA, emphasizing the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

The Court noted that while MCL 333.27965(1) and (2) of the MRTMA explicitly include “possession with intent to deliver” when defining civil infractions and misdemeanors for lesser quantities, MCL 333.27965(4)—which addresses misdemeanor penalties for quantities exceeding twice the allowed amount—conspicuously omits this phrase.  

This deliberate omission, the Court reasoned, indicated the electorate’s intent to exclude large-scale possession with intent to deliver from the MRTMA’s more lenient penalty scheme, thereby leaving such conduct subject to the felony provisions of Article 7 of the Public Health Code.

The Court further posited that this interpretation aligns with the MRTMA’s broader purpose of preventing the diversion of marijuana to illicit markets, asserting that large-scale, remunerated distribution outside state regulation constitutes illicit dealing.

The case was thus remanded to the Circuit Court for trial on the felony charges.  

Michigan Supreme Court: Update 7-11-2025

The legal trajectory of People v. Julia Kathleen Soto has now reached the state’s highest judicial body. The case, identified as Michigan Supreme Court Docket No. 167834

Issue: Whether the Michigan Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal and, if so, affirm, reverse, or modify the Michigan Court of Appeals’ interpretation of the MRTMA’s applicability to felony marijuana charges under the Public Health Code. 

Result: On 7-11-25 Denied

The Michigan Supreme Court

The People v. Julia Kathleen Soto case has reached the highest court in Michigan.

Issue: Will the Michigan Supreme Court review the Court of Appeals’ decision and potentially change the interpretation of the MRTMA regarding large-scale marijuana offenses?

Result: The case, identified as Michigan Supreme Court Docket No. 167834, is currently “Pending on Application”. This means that Soto has asked the Supreme Court to hear her appeal, and the Court is deciding whether to take the case. Until the Supreme Court makes a decision, the ruling from the Court of Appeals stands.  

UPDATE 7-11-2025 DENIED

Implications for Legal Practice

The People v. Julia Kathleen Soto case underscores the critical importance of meticulous statutory interpretation in the evolving domain of cannabis law. The Michigan Court of Appeals’ published opinion provides a clear, albeit potentially temporary, delineation between regulated cannabis activity and illicit trafficking. For legal professionals, this case highlights that the MRTMA is not a blanket decriminalization statute for all marijuana-related conduct, particularly concerning commercial quantities and intent to deliver for remuneration.

For those navigating the complexities of Michigan’s cannabis and controlled substance laws, the need for experienced legal counsel is paramount. Komorn Law specializes in these intricate areas, offering robust defense strategies informed by a deep understanding of statutory construction, appellate procedure, and the nuances of Michigan’s Public Health Code and MRTMA.

Sources: Michigan Court of Appeals Opinion,

People of MI v. Julia Kathleen Soto, COA 370138 (Oct. 7, 2024). Michigan Court of Appeals Order,

People of MI v. Julia Kathleen Soto, Docket No. 370138 (May 24, 2024). Michigan Medical Marijuana Blog, “MRTMA defense denied dismissal by MI Court of Appeals” (Oct. 7, 2024).

Michigan Court of Appeals Opinion,

People of MI v. Julia Kathleen Soto, COA 370138 (Oct. 7, 2024). Michigan Court of Appeals Opinion,

People of MI v. Julia Kathleen Soto, COA 370138 (Oct. 7, 2024). Michigan Court of Appeals Opinion,

People of MI v. Julia Kathleen Soto, COA 370138 (Oct. 7, 2024). Michigan Court of Appeals Opinion,

People of MI v. Julia Kathleen Soto, COA 370138 (Oct. 7, 2024). Michigan Courts Case Search, “PEOPLE OF MI V JULIA KATHLEEN SOTO,” MSC #167834.

Michigan Court of Appeals Order,

People of MI v. Julia Kathleen Soto, Docket No. 365822 (Sep. 11, 2023). Michigan Court of Appeals Order,

People of MI v. Julia Kathleen Soto, Docket No. 365822 (Sep. 11, 2023).

More Posts

Sextortion and Sexploitation in Michigan

Sextortion and Sexploitation in Michigan

FAQs and Laws about Sextortion and SexploitationSextortion and sexploitation are increasingly prevalent and devastating forms of digital abuse, leveraging technology to coerce, manipulate, and exploit individuals, often for sexual gratification or financial gain....

read more
Michigan State Police Bust $10 Million Marijuana Grow

Michigan State Police Bust $10 Million Marijuana Grow

Sometimes, a higher court needs to step in to ensure a lower court is properly administering justice. This powerful action is called "superintending control."Lake County, MI – In a significant enforcement action, the Michigan State Police (MSP) recently seized over...

read more
Legal Tip – Your Rights During a DUI Stop in Michigan

Legal Tip – Your Rights During a DUI Stop in Michigan

Komorn Law - Quick Legal TipsLegal Tip: Understanding Your Rights During a DUI Stop in Michigan A DUI stop can be stressful, but knowing your rights is crucial. You have the right to remain silent. You are not obligated to answer questions beyond basic identification....

read more
What do you do when you are pulled over for suspected DUI?

What do you do when you are pulled over for suspected DUI?

If you are pulled over for suspected drunk driving you are probably going to be arrested. The less you say - the better off you are in the long run. If you find yourself being pulled over for suspected DUI, ensure you pull over safely to the roadside, maintain a...

read more
What is a Franks Hearing?

What is a Franks Hearing?

What is a Frank's Hearing?A Franks hearing is a critical legal tool used when a defendant claims that police lied, exaggerated, or recklessly disregarded the truth in a search warrant affidavit. When law enforcement places its hand on the Constitution, the law...

read more

Komorn Law

Arrested? – Better Call Komorn

248-357-2550

Komorn Law
Areas of Service

We fight for our clients throughout the State of Michigan and Northern Ohio.

Here are some court contacts we frequently handle cases.

Oakland County

If you are facing any legal charges in Oakland County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

Macomb County

If you are facing any legal charges in Macomb County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

Wayne County

If you are facing any legal charges in Wayne County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information for the Third Circuit Court (Wayne County):

  • Telephone Number (Civil/Family): (313) 224-5510
  • Telephone Number (Criminal): (313) 224-5261 or (313) 224-2503
  • Address (Civil/Family): 2 Woodward Avenue, Detroit, MI 48226
  • Address (Criminal): 1441 St. Antoine, Detroit, MI 48226
  • Website: https://www.3rdcc.org/

Kent County

If you are facing any legal charges in Kent County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

  • Telephone Number: (616) 632-5220
  • Address: 180 Ottawa Avenue NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49503
  • Website: Kent County

Traverse County

If you are facing any legal charges in Traverse County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information for the 13th Circuit Court (which includes Traverse County):

Monroe County

If you are facing any legal charges in Monroe County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

Update July 2025 – The Other Bodily Fluid Road Test in Michigan

Update July 2025 – The Other Bodily Fluid Road Test in Michigan

Jul 23, 2025 | Michigan News

Open Wide

Recent news reports from July 2025 indicate that the Michigan House of Representatives approved bills (House Bills 4390 and 4391) that would allow for roadside saliva testing (also known as oral fluid analysis) for drivers suspected of being under the influence of drugs. 

House Bill 4390

House Bill 4390 in Michigan expands the Michigan Vehicle Code to include oral fluid testing as a method for detecting controlled substances in drivers suspected of impairment. This means law enforcement can use saliva tests to screen for drugs at roadside stops, similar to how they currently use breathalyzers for alcohol. The bill also broadens the definition of “other bodily fluid” to include saliva in various provisions related to chemical testing for intoxication. 

House Bill 4391

Michigan House Bill 4391 expands the Michigan Vehicle Code to include “oral fluid” as a method of testing for intoxication or impairment, primarily focusing on oral fluid testing. This bill allows peace officers to conduct preliminary oral fluid analyses, in addition to existing breath tests, and permits chemical testing of oral fluid samples alongside blood and urine tests. It also includes provisions to protect individuals’ privacy when oral fluid testing is performed. The bill is tied to the passage of House Bill 4390 and will take effect 90 days after enactment

Here’s a breakdown of the saliva road test situation in Michigan

  • Purpose: These tests are intended to be a tool for law enforcement to quickly screen for the presence of drugs like THC (the psychoactive component of marijuana), cocaine, methamphetamine, opiates, or benzodiazepines in a driver’s system.
  • Procedure: If enacted, police officers would use a swab to collect saliva from inside a driver’s mouth, and the swab would be inserted into a device that alerts for the presence of these substances.
  • Roadside Testing and Admissibility: Roadside saliva test results aren’t admissible in court except under certain circumstances but can serve as the basis for an arrest.
  • Lab Testing and Admissibility: The legislation also allows for the collection of saliva with a swab and sending it to a lab for analysis, with those results being admissible in court.
  • Criticisms: Critics argue that these tests do not indicate the quantity of drugs in a person’s system or whether they are actually impaired, which could potentially lead to unjust arrests and prosecutions. Concerns have also been raised about the accuracy of the tests and potential privacy issues related to DNA in saliva samples.
  • Refusal to Test: Drivers who refuse to submit to a roadside saliva test could be subject to a civil infraction. 

If you have been pulled over for DUI or Driving High or Driving on Drugs.
You better call one of Michigan’s best defense Attorneys.
You better call Komorn (248) 357-2550

Updated Time Line

  • Jul 17, 2025 | Senate
    PASSED BY HOUSE WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT
    REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS, JUDICIARY, AND PUBLIC SAFETY
  • Jul 01, 2025 | House
    read a third time
    amended
    passed; given immediate effect Roll Call #168 Yeas 61 Nays 44 Excused 0 Not Voting 5
    transmitted
  • Jun 26, 2025 | House
    reported with recommendation with substitute (H-2)
    referred to second reading
    read a second time
    substitute (H-2) adopted
    placed on third reading
  • May 22, 2025 | House
    reported with recommendation for referral to Committee on Rules with substitute (H-2)
    recommendation concurred in
  • Apr 29, 2025 | House
    bill electronically reproduced 04/24/2025
  • Apr 24, 2025 | House
    introduced by Representative Rep. Julie Rogers
    read a first time
    referred to Committee on Government Operations

Related Aricle

Current Roadside Tests For Marijuana Impairment Are ‘Pseudoscientific,’ Law Professor Says

Links

Here’s 5 FAQs about Michigan HB 4390 and HB 4391 (2025 session):

 

1. What are Michigan House Bills 4390 and 4391 primarily about? Michigan House Bills 4390 and 4391 are companion bills that aim to amend the Michigan Vehicle Code to allow for roadside oral fluid (saliva) tests to screen drivers for the presence of controlled substances, including marijuana. They would add these “preliminary oral fluid analyses” to the existing provisions for preliminary breath tests for alcohol.

2. How would these bills change current roadside drug testing procedures? Currently, a peace officer can request a preliminary breath test for alcohol. These bills would expand that authority to include requesting a preliminary oral fluid test for controlled substances. Importantly, the bills would allow a general “peace officer” to perform these tests, whereas previous pilot programs for roadside drug testing in Michigan required a “certified drug recognition expert.”

3. What substances would be detectable by these new roadside tests? The bills broadly refer to detecting the “presence of a controlled substance.” While the specifics of the testing devices are not detailed in the bill language, the Michigan State Police’s previous pilot program for oral fluid testing focused on substances such as THC (from marijuana), amphetamines, and cocaine.

4. What are the potential impacts of these bills if they become law? If enacted, these bills could lead to an increase in the number of individuals found to be in violation of impaired driving laws related to controlled substances. This could result in new costs for the Department of State Police and local law enforcement agencies related to acquiring the necessary testing equipment. Depending on the number of additional convictions, there could be an indeterminate fiscal impact on the state and local governments, as violations can range from civil infractions to misdemeanors or felonies.

5. What is the current status of House Bills 4390 and 4391? Both House Bills 4390 and 4391 have passed the Michigan House of Representatives and have been transmitted to the Senate. As of July 2025, they have been referred to the Senate Committee on Civil Rights, Judiciary, and Public Safety for further consideration. (7-17-25)

More Posts

Sextortion and Sexploitation in Michigan

Sextortion and Sexploitation in Michigan

FAQs and Laws about Sextortion and SexploitationSextortion and sexploitation are increasingly prevalent and devastating forms of digital abuse, leveraging technology to coerce, manipulate, and exploit individuals, often for sexual gratification or financial gain....

read more
Michigan State Police Bust $10 Million Marijuana Grow

Michigan State Police Bust $10 Million Marijuana Grow

Sometimes, a higher court needs to step in to ensure a lower court is properly administering justice. This powerful action is called "superintending control."Lake County, MI – In a significant enforcement action, the Michigan State Police (MSP) recently seized over...

read more
Legal Tip – Your Rights During a DUI Stop in Michigan

Legal Tip – Your Rights During a DUI Stop in Michigan

Komorn Law - Quick Legal TipsLegal Tip: Understanding Your Rights During a DUI Stop in Michigan A DUI stop can be stressful, but knowing your rights is crucial. You have the right to remain silent. You are not obligated to answer questions beyond basic identification....

read more
What do you do when you are pulled over for suspected DUI?

What do you do when you are pulled over for suspected DUI?

If you are pulled over for suspected drunk driving you are probably going to be arrested. The less you say - the better off you are in the long run. If you find yourself being pulled over for suspected DUI, ensure you pull over safely to the roadside, maintain a...

read more
What is a Franks Hearing?

What is a Franks Hearing?

What is a Frank's Hearing?A Franks hearing is a critical legal tool used when a defendant claims that police lied, exaggerated, or recklessly disregarded the truth in a search warrant affidavit. When law enforcement places its hand on the Constitution, the law...

read more

Komorn Law

Arrested? – Better Call Komorn

248-357-2550

Komorn Law
Areas of Service

We fight for our clients throughout the State of Michigan and Northern Ohio.

Here are some court contacts we frequently handle cases.

Oakland County

If you are facing any legal charges in Oakland County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

Macomb County

If you are facing any legal charges in Macomb County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

Wayne County

If you are facing any legal charges in Wayne County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information for the Third Circuit Court (Wayne County):

  • Telephone Number (Civil/Family): (313) 224-5510
  • Telephone Number (Criminal): (313) 224-5261 or (313) 224-2503
  • Address (Civil/Family): 2 Woodward Avenue, Detroit, MI 48226
  • Address (Criminal): 1441 St. Antoine, Detroit, MI 48226
  • Website: https://www.3rdcc.org/

Kent County

If you are facing any legal charges in Kent County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

  • Telephone Number: (616) 632-5220
  • Address: 180 Ottawa Avenue NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49503
  • Website: Kent County

Traverse County

If you are facing any legal charges in Traverse County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information for the 13th Circuit Court (which includes Traverse County):

Monroe County

If you are facing any legal charges in Monroe County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

Michigan Governor Whitmer Announces Medical Debt Forgiveness

Michigan Governor Whitmer Announces Medical Debt Forgiveness

Jul 21, 2025 | Criminal Defense, Michigan Laws, Michigan Medical Marhuana Regulation, Michigan News

Michigan Implements Substantial Medical Debt Forgiveness Program

Governor Gretchen Whitmer has announced a significant initiative to alleviate the burden of medical debt for nearly 210,000 Michigan residents, totaling over $144 million in forgiven obligations. This program, a collaborative effort with the national non-profit Undue Medical Debt, represents a strategic deployment of state resources to address a critical factor contributing to financial instability among Michigan households. The funding for this endeavor primarily stems from the state’s fiscal year 2024 budget, along with supplemental contributions from various county governments, and leverages the unique operational model of Undue Medical Debt to maximize the impact of every dollar allocated. This article will provide a detailed exposition of the program’s origins, funding mechanisms, eligibility criteria, and relevant legal considerations.

Background and Program Genesis

The persistent issue of medical debt profoundly impacts the financial well-being of individuals and families across the United States. Governor Whitmer’s administration has consistently emphasized addressing healthcare costs and improving accessibility.

While the specifics of this particular program are recent, the Governor’s familiarity with the intricacies of the healthcare finance system may be informed by her personal history. Her father, Richard Whitmer, held the position of President and CEO of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan from 1988 to 2006.

His extensive tenure in a leadership role within a major healthcare insurer would have provided direct insight into the systemic challenges associated with medical expenditures and the resultant accumulation of debt. This familial connection to the healthcare industry may have contributed to a comprehensive understanding that underpins the state’s proactive engagement in such debt relief initiatives.

The partnership with Undue Medical Debt is predicated on the non-profit’s capacity to acquire large portfolios of medical debt from healthcare providers and collection agencies at a significantly reduced rate, subsequently discharging these obligations for the affected individuals.

The primary source of funding for this round of medical debt forgiveness is an allocation of $4.5 million from the Michigan state fiscal year 2024 budget.

Key Aspects of the Medical Debt Forgiveness Program:

  • Strategic Partnership: The State of Michigan has formalized a partnership with Undue Medical Debt, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. This collaboration is instrumental in the program’s efficacy, as Undue Medical Debt specializes in purchasing medical debt in bulk for a fraction of its face value, thereby enabling its complete extinguishment for debtors.
  • Funding Allocation and Taxpayer Dollars: The primary source of funding for this round of medical debt forgiveness is an allocation of $4.5 million from the Michigan state fiscal year 2024 budget. This constitutes the direct use of taxpayer dollars. Furthermore, contributions from specific counties, including Wayne, Oakland, and Kalamazoo, have augmented the program’s capacity. The efficiency of the program is amplified by Undue Medical Debt’s operational model, wherein, on average, every dollar contributed facilitates the eradication of approximately one hundred dollars in medical debt.
  • Eligibility Criteria: Eligibility for medical debt relief is determined by specific financial parameters. Individuals qualify if their income is at or below four hundred percent (400%) of the federal poverty level, or if their medical debt constitutes five percent (5%) or more of their annual income. This targeted approach ensures that assistance is directed toward those experiencing the most substantial financial hardship due to medical obligations.
  • Notification Protocol: Individuals whose medical debt has been discharged will receive formal notification via mail directly from Undue Medical Debt. This communication will confirm the forgiveness of their outstanding medical bills, and no proactive action is required from the beneficiaries.
  • Credit Reporting Implications: It is important for beneficiaries to understand the implications for their credit reports. While the medical debt is indeed forgiven under this program, a recent federal court ruling reversed a prior rule that would have mandated the removal of medical debt from credit reports. Consequently, previously reported medical debt may persist on credit reports for up to seven years, irrespective of its forgiveness under this initiative.
  • Michigan Statutes Governing Medical Debt Collection: In Michigan, the statute of limitations for the collection of medical debt is six (6) years from the date of the last payment or written acknowledgment of the debt. Beyond this period, creditors are generally precluded from initiating legal action to recover the debt, though non-litigious collection attempts may still occur.

Komorn Law PLLC

Established in 1993, Komorn Law possesses extensive experience and expertise in navigating the complexities of legal proceedings across all court systems, ranging from district to federal jurisdictions. When confronted with legal challenges, it is imperative to secure diligent legal representation from a firm that comprehends the intricate nuances of the law and is committed to achieving favorable outcomes for its clientele. Komorn Law is distinguished by its assertive advocacy and unwavering dedication to justice. For professional legal counsel from a firm known for its tenacious representation, contact our office at (248) 357-2550.

FAQs

About Michigan’s medical debt forgiveness program

 

Q: How is eligibility for this medical debt forgiveness program determined?

A: Eligibility is determined based on financial criteria, specifically if an individual’s income is at or below four times the federal poverty level, or if their medical debt accounts for 5% or more of their annual income.

Q: Will the forgiveness of medical debt through this program remove past medical debt entries from my credit report?

A: While the debt itself is forgiven, a recent federal court ruling indicates that previously reported medical debt may remain on credit reports for up to seven years, even after being discharged through this program.

Q: What recourse do individuals have if they are subjected to collection attempts for medical debt after it has been officially forgiven under this initiative?

A: Individuals who receive notification of medical debt forgiveness and subsequently face collection attempts should retain their official forgiveness letter from Undue Medical Debt. They may consult with legal counsel to assert their rights and address any improper collection practices, referencing Michigan’s debt collection laws, such as MCL 445.252.

More Posts

Sextortion and Sexploitation in Michigan

Sextortion and Sexploitation in Michigan

FAQs and Laws about Sextortion and SexploitationSextortion and sexploitation are increasingly prevalent and devastating forms of digital abuse, leveraging technology to coerce, manipulate, and exploit individuals, often for sexual gratification or financial gain....

read more
Michigan State Police Bust $10 Million Marijuana Grow

Michigan State Police Bust $10 Million Marijuana Grow

Sometimes, a higher court needs to step in to ensure a lower court is properly administering justice. This powerful action is called "superintending control."Lake County, MI – In a significant enforcement action, the Michigan State Police (MSP) recently seized over...

read more
Legal Tip – Your Rights During a DUI Stop in Michigan

Legal Tip – Your Rights During a DUI Stop in Michigan

Komorn Law - Quick Legal TipsLegal Tip: Understanding Your Rights During a DUI Stop in Michigan A DUI stop can be stressful, but knowing your rights is crucial. You have the right to remain silent. You are not obligated to answer questions beyond basic identification....

read more
What do you do when you are pulled over for suspected DUI?

What do you do when you are pulled over for suspected DUI?

If you are pulled over for suspected drunk driving you are probably going to be arrested. The less you say - the better off you are in the long run. If you find yourself being pulled over for suspected DUI, ensure you pull over safely to the roadside, maintain a...

read more
What is a Franks Hearing?

What is a Franks Hearing?

What is a Frank's Hearing?A Franks hearing is a critical legal tool used when a defendant claims that police lied, exaggerated, or recklessly disregarded the truth in a search warrant affidavit. When law enforcement places its hand on the Constitution, the law...

read more

Komorn Law

Arrested? – Better Call Komorn

248-357-2550

Komorn Law
Areas of Service

We fight for our clients throughout the State of Michigan and Northern Ohio.

Here are some court contacts we frequently handle cases.

Oakland County

If you are facing any legal charges in Oakland County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

Macomb County

If you are facing any legal charges in Macomb County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

Wayne County

If you are facing any legal charges in Wayne County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information for the Third Circuit Court (Wayne County):

  • Telephone Number (Civil/Family): (313) 224-5510
  • Telephone Number (Criminal): (313) 224-5261 or (313) 224-2503
  • Address (Civil/Family): 2 Woodward Avenue, Detroit, MI 48226
  • Address (Criminal): 1441 St. Antoine, Detroit, MI 48226
  • Website: https://www.3rdcc.org/

Kent County

If you are facing any legal charges in Kent County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

  • Telephone Number: (616) 632-5220
  • Address: 180 Ottawa Avenue NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49503
  • Website: Kent County

Traverse County

If you are facing any legal charges in Traverse County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information for the 13th Circuit Court (which includes Traverse County):

Monroe County

If you are facing any legal charges in Monroe County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information: