ADM File No. 2022-34
Amendments of Rules 3.993 and 6.428 of the Michigan Court Rules
To read this file, visit perma.cc/YH9N-2WZZ
ADM File No. 2024-03
Amendment of Rule 2.003 of the Michigan Court Rules
To read this file, visit perma.cc/8APT-EV8D
ADM File No. 2021-27
Amendments of Rules 3.207 and 3.210 of the Michigan Court Rules
To read this file, visit perma.cc/7GBU-MT6A
ADM File No. 2023-30
Adoption of Administrative Order No. 2025-1
To read this file, visit perma.cc/C8HB-88XN
ADM File No. 2022-08
Amendment of Rule 7.206 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, notice of the proposed changes and an opportunity for comment in writing and at a public hearing having been provided, and consideration having been given to the comments received, the following amendment of Rule 7.206 of the Michigan Court Rules is adopted, effective September 1, 2025.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 7.206 Extraordinary Writs, Original Actions, and Enforcement Actions (A)-(F) [Unchanged.]
(G) Petition for Review or Extension of Time for County Apportionment Plan.
(1) Petition. To obtain review of an apportionment plan as provided in MCL 45.505(5) or 46.406, or to obtain an extension of time to submit an apportionment plan under MCL 45.505(5) or 46.407, the petitioner must file with the clerk within the time limit provided by law: (a) a petition concisely stating the basis for relief and the relief sought;
(b) a copy of the apportionment plan;
(c) as may be applicable, a sworn statement from a qualified expert attesting to the expert’s opinion as to the factual basis for the petitioner’s claim that the challenged apportionment plan violates the law;
(d) a supporting brief conforming to MCR 7.212(B) and (C) to the extent possible;
(e) proof that a copy of each of the filed documents was served on the respondent, the county commission, and any other interested party; and
(f) the entry fee.
(2) Answer. A respondent or any other interested party must file with the clerk within 21 days of service of the petition: (a) an answer to the petition;
(b) a supporting brief conforming to MCR 7.212(B) and (D) to the extent possible; and
(c) proof that a copy of each of the filed documents was served on the petitioner, the county commission, and any other interested party.
(3) Preliminary Hearing. There is no oral argument on preliminary hearing of a petition. The court may deny relief, grant peremptory relief, or allow the parties to proceed to full hearing on the merits in the same manner as an appeal of right. However, if the preliminary hearing on the complaint shows that either party’s pleadings or briefs demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact exists that must be determined before a resolution can be reached as to whether the reapportionment violates the law, or that there is a need for discovery and the development of a factual record, the court must proceed to full hearing on the merits in the same manner as an appeal of right. If the court must proceed to full hearing under this subrule, the panel must first refer the suit to a judicial circuit to hold pretrial proceedings, conduct a hearing to receive evidence and arguments of law, and issue a written report for the panel setting forth proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The proceedings before the circuit court must proceed as expeditiously as due consideration of the circuit court’s docket, facts, and issues of law requires. Following receipt of the circuit court’s report, the court of appeals clerk must certify the order allowing the case to proceed and notify the parties of the schedule for filing briefs in response to the circuit court’s report and of the date for oral argument, which must be on an expedited basis.
(4) Full Hearing. If the case is ordered to proceed to full hearing, (a) the time for filing a brief by the petitioner begins to run from the date the clerk certifies the order allowing the case to proceed;
(b) the petitioner’s brief must conform to MCR 7.212(B) and (C); and
(c) an opposing brief must conform to MCR 7.212(B) and (D).
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2022-08): The amendment of MCR 7.206 establishes procedures for handling county reapportionment challenges.
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of a new rule or amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.
ADM File No. 2022-48
Amendment of Canon 3 of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct
On order of the Court, notice of the proposed changes and an opportunity for comment in writing and at a public hearing having been provided, and consideration having been given to the comments received, the following amendment of Canon 3 of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct is adopted, effective September 1, 2025.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Canon 3. A Judge Should Perform the Duties of Office Impartially and Diligently.
The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all other activities. Judicial duties include all the duties of office prescribed by law. In the performance of these duties, the following standards apply:
A. Adjudicative Responsibilities:
(1)-(3) [Unchanged.]
(4) A judge may make reasonable efforts, consistent with the law, court rules, and rules of evidence, to facilitate the ability of all litigants, including self- represented litigants, to be fairly heard.
(a) In the interest of ensuring fairness and access to justice, judges may make reasonable efforts that help self-represented litigants to understand the proceedings and applicable procedural requirements, secure legal assistance, and be heard according to law. The judge should be careful that the reasonable efforts do not give self- represented litigants an unfair advantage or create an appearance of judicial partiality. In some circumstances, particular efforts for self- represented litigants are required by decisional or other law. In other circumstances, potential efforts are within the judge’s discretion.
(b) Reasonable efforts that a judge may take in the exercise of such discretion include, but are not limited to:
(i) Construe pleadings to facilitate consideration of the issues raised.
(ii) Provide brief information or explanation about the proceedings.
(iii) Ask neutral questions to elicit or clarify information.
(iv) Modify the traditional manner or order of taking evidence.
(v) Refer litigants to any resources available to assist in the preparation of the case or enforcement and compliance with any order.
(vi) Inform litigants what will be happening next in the case and what is expected of them.
(4)-(14) [Renumbered (5)-(15) but otherwise unchanged.]
B.-D. [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2022-48): The amendment of MCJC 3 allows a judge to make reasonable efforts to facilitate the ability of all litigants to be fairly heard.
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of a new rule or amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.
ADM File No. 2023-33
Amendment of Rule 7.209 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, notice of the proposed changes and an opportunity for comment in writing and at a public hearing having been provided, and consideration having been given to the comments received, the following amendment of Rule 7.209 of the Michigan Court Rules is adopted, effective September 1, 2025.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 7.209 Bond; Stay of Proceedings
(A)-(C) [Unchanged.]
(D) Review by Court of Appeals. Except as otherwise provided by rule or law, on motion filed in a case pending before it, the Court of Appeals may amend the amount of bond set by the trial court, order an additional or different bond and set the amount, or require different or additional sureties. The Court of Appeals may also refer a bond or bail matter to the court from which the appeal is taken. On its own initiative or on a party’s motion, tThe Court of Appeals may grant a stay of proceedings in the trial court or stay theof effect or enforcement of any judgment or order of a trial court on the terms it deems just.
(E)-(I) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2023-33): The amendment of MCR 7.209 clarifies that the appellate courts can sua sponte order a stay of proceedings or stay the effect or enforcement of any trial court judgment or order.
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of a new rule or amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.
ADM File No. 2025-01
Appointments to the Michigan Tribal State Federal Judicial Forum
On order of the Court, pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2014- 12, the following members are reappointed to the Michigan Tribal State Federal Judicial Forum for terms commencing on July 2, 2025 and expiring on July 1, 2028:
- Honorable Terence J. Ackert
- Honorable Carol Montavon Bealor
- Honorable Stuart Black
- Honorable Beth A. Gibson
- Honorable Kelley Kostin
- Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris
- Honorable Jeffrey C. Nellis
- Honorable Valerie Snyder
- Honorable Maarten Vermaat
ADM File No. 2021-29
Proposed Amendment of Rule 6.201 of the Michigan Court Rules
The Court, having given an opportunity for comment in writing and at a public hearing, again seeks public comment regarding the proposed amendment of Rule 6.201 of the Michigan Court Rules. The Court has revised the original proposal and is interested in receiving additional comments on this revised proposal.
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an amendment of Rule 6.201 of the Michigan Court Rules. Before determining whether the proposal should be adopted, changed before adoption, or rejected, this notice is given to afford interested persons the opportunity to comment on the form or the merits of the proposal or to suggest alternatives. The Court welcomes the views of all. This matter will also be considered at a public hearing. The notices and agendas for each public hearing are posted on the Public Administrative Hearings page.
Publication of this proposal does not mean that the Court will issue an order on the subject, nor does it imply probable adoption of the proposal in its present form.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 6.201 Discovery
(A) [Unchanged.]
(B) Discovery of Information Known to the Prosecuting Attorney. Upon request, the prosecuting attorney must provide each defendant: (1) [Unchanged.]
(2) any police report and interrogation records concerning the case, except so much of a report as:
(a) concerns a continuing investigation;
(b) contains any personal identifying information protected by MCR 1.109(D)(9)(a), which may be redacted;
(c) contains information otherwise protected under MCR 6.201, which may be redacted.
(3)-(5) [Unchanged.]
(C)-(K) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2021-29): The proposed amendment of MCR
6.201 would require, before providing a police report or interrogation record to the defendant, redaction of personal identifying information and information otherwise protected under the rule.
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of a new rule or amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.
A copy of this order will be given to the Secretary of the State Bar and to the State Court Administrator so that they can make the notifications specified in MCR 1.201. Comments on the proposal may be submitted by October 1, 2025 by clicking on the “Comment on this Proposal” link under this proposal on the Court’s Proposed & Adopted Orders on Administrative Matters page. You may also submit a comment in writing at
P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909 or via email at ADMcomment@courts.mi.gov. When submitting a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2021-29. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.
ADM File No. 2024-25
Retention and Further Amendment of Administrative Order No. 2016-3
On order of the Court, notice of the amendment and an opportunity for comment in writing and at a public hearing having been provided, and consideration having been given to the comments received, the October 2, 2024 amendment of Administrative Order No. 2016-3 is retained. The following additional amendment of Administrative Order No. 2016-3 is adopted, effective immediately.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
AO 2016-3 Prisoner Electronic Filing Program
[Paragraphs 1-8 unchanged.]
If the filing is accepted, it will be docketed in the Court’s case management system and electronically served on those persons or entities that the prisoner litigant has identified as parties to the litigation if they are registered users of MiFILE or have an email address listed in the State Bar of Michigan attorney directory. The Clerks’ Offices will mail copies of the prisoner litigant’s filing via the U.S. Postal Service to identified parties who cannot be e-served. For accepted filings, the Clerks’ Offices will transmit a Notice of Acceptance to the MDOC that identifies, among other things, the names and service information of parties who were served with the filing. The Notice of Acceptance also will be electronically transmitted or mailed to the lower courts/tribunals as notice of the appeal under MCR 7.204(E), MCR 7.205(B), or MCR 7.305(A)(3), as applicable. If the filing is accepted but the persons or entities that the prisoner litigant has identified as parties to the litigation cannot be electronically served, the Clerks’ Offices will advise the prisoner litigant that the prisoner litigant must mail copies of the filing via the U.S. Postal Service to identified parties and provide proof of service to the Court within 21 days of receiving such notice. The MDOC will provide a copy of the Notice of Rejection or Notice of Acceptance to the prisoner litigant as soon as practicable.
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2024-25): The amendment of AO 2016-3 removes the requirement for Clerks’ Offices to mail copies of a prisoner litigant’s filings to identified parties who cannot be served electronically and sets forth a procedure for handling such filings.
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of a new rule or amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.