Opinion
SC: 163073 COA: 351308
07-22-2022
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Travis Michael JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Order
By order of May 13, 2022, the Court directed supplemental briefing from the parties. On order of the Court, the briefs having been received, the application for leave to appeal the April 8, 2021 judgment of the Court of Appeals is again considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall address: (1) whether MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii ) violates separation of powers by assigning the judicial branch " ‘tasks that are more properly accomplished by [the Legislature],’ " Mistretta v. United States , 488 U.S. 361, 383, 109 S.Ct. 647, 102 L.Ed.2d 714 (1989), quoting Morrison v. Olson , 487 U.S. 654, 680-681, 108 S.Ct. 2597, 101 L.Ed.2d 569 (1988) ; see also Houseman v. Kent Circuit Judge , 58 Mich. 364, 367, 25 N.W. 369 (1885) ; (2) whether MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii ) violates due process by creating a " ‘potential for bias’ " or an "objective risk of actual bias," Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co, Inc , 556 U.S. 868, 881, 886, 129 S.Ct. 2252, 173 L.Ed.2d 1208 (2009), quoting Mayberry v. Pennsylvania , 400 U.S. 455, 465-466, 91 S.Ct. 499, 27 L.Ed.2d 532 (1971) ; see also, e.g., Williams v. Pennsylvania , 579 U.S. 1, 8-9, 136 S.Ct. 1899, 195 L.Ed.2d 132 (2016) ; and (3) should we find MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii ) facially unconstitutional under either theory, what remedy follows. The time allowed for oral argument shall be 20 minutes for each side. MCR 7.314(B)(1).
We direct the Clerk to schedule the oral argument in this case for the same future session of the Court when it will hear oral argument in People v Edwards (Docket No. 163942).
The Michigan Senate and the Michigan House of Representatives, the Michigan District Judges Association, the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan, the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, the Detroit Justice Center, and the Institute for Justice are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.