In November, Michigan voters will choose two justices to serve on the state Supreme Court. Here on Morning Edition on Michigan Public, we’re bringing you interviews with the candidates.
Patrick William O’Grady will be on the ballot this fall. Judge O’Grady was first elected to Michigan’s 15th Circuit Court in Branch County in southern Michigan in 2008 and has been re-elected twice since. He is one of two candidates running for a partial four-year term.
O'Grady spoke with Michigan Public Morning Edition host Doug Tribou.
Doug Tribou: Before we get to some questions, I’ll note here that judicial candidates in Michigan are listed without any party affiliation on the ballot. However, parties do nominate candidates for the court and the Michigan Republican Party selected you as one its nominees. Democratic nominees currently hold a 4-3 majority on the court, but the balance could shift with this election.
As I mentioned, you’ve had a long tenure at Michigan's 15th Circuit Court. You still have a couple of years left in your term. Why did you decide to run for the Supreme Court now?
Patrick William O'Grady: Well, when I looked across the board in reference to our court historically, I had the great beneficial aspect of being a judge and having a great Supreme Court above me that really kind of mentored me both formally and informally as a young judge and also as a prosecutor.
And then I started to see that either through retirement or attrition, those incredible justices — [Stephen] Markman, [Maura] Corrigan, [Clifford] Taylor, Bob Young — they all had left the court and then the court changed over a period of years.
You know, when we speak to people on the street and they find out that out of the seven [current] justices, only two have actually presided over a case before in a court, the public is kind of astounded at that. They assume that all the justices have a high level of trial experience as judges. And I'm at that point in my career of over 15 years of having that experience. I think it is time to be able to offer that to the public and be able to have really a great impact on the jurisprudence here in the state of Michigan.
DT: Could you describe your judicial philosophy and how it would apply to your work on the Supreme Court, if you’re elected?
PWO: It's important when any litigant enters a courtroom that they realize that they are going to be treated fairly and impartially and the actual rule of law is going to be applied. It's not going to be the feelings or the whims of a judge or the whims of other leadership. So my analysis is a very textual original analysis to the law. So you're going to get an application of actually what the law says. And this is the law that the legislator created, that they voted on, and that a governor signed, as well. The court is not supposed to undermine that process. It's simply supposed to apply the law.
Democratic nominees currently hold a 4-3 majority on the Michigan Supreme Court. Voters will choose two justices in November.
DT: Former President Donald Trump endorsed your candidacy for the Supreme Court in September. In a post on his social media platform, he called you a “strong Rule of Law judge.” Clearly you agree with that description?
PWO: I do because I think that when you go into a courtroom, you want the rule of law applied. And having had the opportunity to handle over 14,000 cases, I'm probably the only candidate, really, who's running — at least this cycle — who's had the opportunity to be the judge over a murder case, a robbery case, a kidnaping, a rape.
People do not want judges going off on their own tangents. They simply want them to apply the law. And it also really sets the atmosphere and the platform when everyone walks into the courtroom and they know what law they're supposed to have. The court rules are going to apply. And they should have a really good understanding as to what the outcome would be.
DT: Had you been in touch with former President Trump or his campaign before that announcement that he was endorsing you?
PWO: You know, I have had the opportunity to be with him a couple of times here in the state of Michigan. Usually, the time you get's not very long, but I have had some very small conversations with the president and we really appreciate his endorsement. And we also appreciate just the fact that he recognizes that, you know, my career really started from grassroots, if you will, boots on the ground. Having gone to law school while working full time as a state trooper, later on became a prosecuting attorney, did that for a number of years, and then elevated to the bench.
DT: I want to ask you about a recent split decision the Michigan Supreme Court issued. The case is known as “Mothering Justice v. Attorney General” and it revolves around a ballot initiative regarding the state’s minimum wage. In 2018, the Legislature adopted a citizen-initiated ballot measure about changing the minimum wage. The Republican-controlled legislature approved it rather than putting it to voters in a general election, which the Legislature has the authority to do. But legislators then gutted the language in the same session. Some groups then sued. In a 4-3 ruling this summer, the court found that the so-called "adopt and amend" strategy was unconstitutional.
This summer, you criticized that ruling during a candidates' forum. What are your concerns about the court’s majority opinion?
PWO: Well, I think that when you look at, if I recall, I think it was [Chief] Justice [Elizabeth] Clement who may have been the main author of the dissent there, joined by Justice [David] Viviano and Justice [Brian] Zahra, if I'm correct. And I think when you look at their analysis, they're spot on that, the one question that they thought that they were curing may have caused years of litigation and 20 more questions to follow — closing factual loopholes or logistical loopholes — when that most likely should have gone back to the voters to participate in that.
There's a great amount of concern in the business world around our entire state in reference to this decision. Now, this is not the first time that the legislature has used "adopt-and-amend," so this was a concern that no one could have predicted at the time. However, we're now navigating that and maybe the Legislature will come forward and adjust all those concerns that were listed in the dissent opinion.
DT: But I think that the issue was the same-session aspect of it.
PWO: Well, and that begs the question: so what are you saying that you can do it in the next session? And I think that if I recall, Justice Clement kind of added those scenarios. Well is it one day? Okay. Is a month okay? Is the next session?
And then you have to look at the Michigan Constitution and the Michigan Constitution did not state, I think, in Clement, Viviano and Zahra's analysis, that that language is not prohibitive in the Constitution. The disagreement came down between the application of the actual text of the Constitution versus the different application or analysis by the majority.
"One thing about having the opportunity to be on the trial court is it gives you incredible amount of insight through experience, repetition and years of service."Michigan Supreme Court candidate Patrick William O'Grady
DT: The federal courts — especially the U.S. Supreme Court — is often accused of being highly politicized with sharp ideological divides. As a current judge in the Michigan court system, how much do you see political or ideological divisions affecting the rulings we get here in the state?
PWO: You know, one thing about having the opportunity to be on the trial court is it gives you incredible amount of insight through experience, repetition and years of service. And you can see the pressures. I saw these pressures being a young trooper on the road. You get pressures as to people telling you who to arrest, who not to arrest, how to do it. As a prosecutor, you may get pressures from the community as to you deciding not to charge someone because you don't believe the investigation's developed. And, you know, you develop the understanding that you're going to have these outside pressures.
Most of your Supreme Court decisions — especially when your question deals with the United States Supreme Court — most of their decisions deal with the analysis of statutes or federal rules. And then you also get constitutional analysis, as well. Many times people get caught up on the topic that's being litigated. Many times it's not the topic. It's actually the formation of a statute or the formation of a rule. And that's the actual litigation of it as to how to interpret it, not whether someone agrees with the topic matter.
Editor's note: Quotes in this article have been edited for length and clarity. You can listen to the full interview near the top of this page.
