Michigan's AG Refuses to Enforce Laws She Doesn't Like

April 18, 2022 By T.R. Clancy

In anticipation of a possible U.S. Supreme Court reversal of Roe v. Wade, Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer and the state's radical attorney general, Democrat Dana Nessel, have launched a pre-emptive two-pronged attack on the existing state law that criminalizes most abortions.  Last Thursday, Whitmer filed a lawsuit demanding judicial recognition of abortion as a protected right under the Michigan constitution.

The same day, Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit to block enforcement of the 1931 law, naming Nessel, in her capacity as attorney general, as defendant.  In transparent coordination with Whitmer and Planned Parenthood, Nessel, the same day, announced in an "impromptu" press conference her refusal to defend against Planned Parenthood's lawsuit.  In a move described as "highly unusual," she also said "she will not even set up a conflict wall in her office to defend the case, not unless or until she is ordered by a court."

Highly unusual, but not for Dana Nessel, who navigates the intricacies of the law the way a power mower navigates a field of daisies.  Her long, loud advocacy for unrestricted legal abortion, which includes her campaign promise not to prosecute abortionists under the 1931 law if Roe is overturned, means she's got a glaring conflict of interest.  The law she refuses to defend reflects the will of the people of the State of Michigan, speaking through their elected representatives.  She's bound by the ethics rules not to represent a client — the state of Michigan — if that representation is "materially limited ... by the lawyer's own interests."  At the very least, another attorney in her office should be allowed to defend the state's interest, independently of Nessel.  But since her office is already handling the Whitmer lawsuit on Nessel's behalf, it's unlikely there's an assistant A.G. who has the guts to go against her. 

This tag-team approach, an example of collusive litigation, has become a Democrat specialty.  You see it when activists file a "friendly lawsuit" against a state (or the federal government) with a Democrat attorney general, who then either settles in the activists' favor or refuses to defend the lawsuit, handing the activists what they want by default. ..........To Read More....