Columns

Fathers Justice Law PLLC is pleased to announce that attorney Jermaine A. Wyrick, owner and founder, recently spoke at the 2025 National Microloan Conference on the subject of “Relationships,” which included Cohabitation, Pre and Post Nuptial Agreements, on a panel with Dr. Pauline J. Furman, who hosted a “Mentality” workshop that Wyrick spoke at in 2023.

Fathers Justice Law PLLC is pleased to announce that attorney Jermaine A. Wyrick, owner and founder, recently spoke at the 2025 National Microloan Conference on the subject of “Relationships,” which included Cohabitation, Pre and Post Nuptial Agreements, on a panel with Dr. Pauline J. Furman, who hosted a “Mentality” workshop that Wyrick spoke at in 2023.

Wyrick is a 2024 graduate of the Goldman Sachs 10,000 Small Business Program, Detroit, Michigan, Cohort 31, earning a “Certificate of Entrepreneurship.” In 2024, he also graduated from the Accounting Aid Society Thrive Program and the Operations School. In 2023, he graduated from the University of Detroit School of Entrepreneurship Boost Program and the Build Institute Social Entrepreneurship cohort, where he won the Pitch competition.

Wyrick has practiced law since 1997. His awards include the 2010 College World Reporter Best Written Article; 2007, Detroit Urban Lutheran School, “Stiving for Excellence;” 2006, Pepsi “Everyday Freedom” Award; 2004, “Civil Rights and Education,” United States Attorney’s Office, Black History Month Award; “2004 Trailblazer Award” from Jordan Educational Consulting Inc.; “Five under Ten” Award from the University of Michigan, African American Alumni Council; Who’s Who in America; the Federal Bar Association, Pro Bono Project Award; Respect for Law, Optimist International; and an award from the Detroit Branch NAACP for Outstanding Leadership in Affirmative Action.

Wyrick has lectured at various places, including the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, Detroit Public Schools Community District, “Dad’s Day in Pre-K,” Detroit Metropolitan Bar Association, the Detroit Branch NAACP George W. Crockett Community Law School, Lorman Education Services, the Northville Psychiatric Hospital, and the Continuing Medical Education program.

•            •            •

Wayne State University Law School announces that Charles “Chip” Brower II, distinguished service professor and foster family research scholar, has been awarded the 2024 Smit-Lowenfeld Prize. Brower is the first scholar ever to receive the prize twice, having previously earned the distinction in 2012. 

Presented annually by the International Arbitration Club of New York, the Smit-Lowenfeld Prize recognizes the year’s most outstanding article on international arbitration. 

Brower’s winning article, “Neglected, Perplexing, Unpredictable: Remedies in International Commercial Arbitration” (102 Neb. L. Rev. 485 (2024)), offers a analysis of one of arbitration’s most overlooked yet critical topics: remedies. 

Brower serves as chair of the Institute for Transnational Arbitration and Of Counsel in Miller Canfield’s International Disputes Group. Over more than 25 years, he has served as arbitrator, counsel, and advocate in proceedings under leading rules including AAA, HKIAC, ICC, SIAC, and before the International Court of Justice. His scholarship has been cited by federal courts in both the United States and Canada, most recently in the Eleventh Circuit’s unanimous en banc opinion in Corporación AIC, SA v. Hidroeléctrica Santa Rita SA. 
Brower is an elected member of the American Law Institute and has been listed in Who’s Who Legal: Arbitration since 2014. His academic career includes visiting positions at Cambridge University’s Lauterpacht Centre for International Law and American University’s Washington College of Law, as well as service on the Executive Council of the American Society of International Law and the AAA’s Observer Delegation to UNCITRAL Working Group II. 

At Wayne Law, Brower teaches courses including Contracts, International Law, International Commercial Arbitration, and the Law of Armed Conflict. He earned a law degree from the University of Virginia School of Law. He also completed a research fellowship at Moscow State University. 

•            •            •

Jones Day has announced that 33 lawyers will be admitted to the firm’s partnership effective January 1, 2026, including the following lawyer in Detroit:

David Kenneth Suska, Issues & Appeals

Suska regularly leads briefing teams in complex civil cases. He has briefed cases at every level of the judiciary, including the U.S. Supreme Court. He has presented oral argument in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth and Seventh Circuits, in federal district courts, and in state courts.

Suska served as a law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch and U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Frank H. Easterbrook, Seventh Circuit. He also served as an attorney-adviser in the Office of Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). For his work at DOJ, he received the Attorney General’s Distinguished Service Award. 

Before becoming a lawyer, Suska worked at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), where he prepared strategic assessments for the President and other officials. For his work at CIA, he received the Sherman Kent Leadership Award.

Suska earned his law degree from The University of Chicago  and his M.A. in Economics and his B.A. from the University of Michigan.

•            •            •

Varnum is pleased to announce the addition of several  associate attorneys to the Birmingham office: Maria Gedris, Laila Hamad, and Rebecca Krasity.

Gedris graduated from Wayne State University Law School. She received her undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan.

Hamad graduated Wayne State University Law School.  She received her undergraduate degree from Eastern Michigan University.

Krasity graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School. She received her undergraduate degree from New York University.

•            •            •

Honigman Partner Matthew Disbrow has been awarded by Michigan Lawyers Weekly as one of the state’s Go-To Lawyers. 

Disbrow is a labor and employment attorney who advises clients concerning a wide spectrum of employment matters, including wage and hour issues, overtime issues, executive employment and compensation, employment discrimination, and other related issues. 

He represents employers in federal and state administrative proceedings as well as trial and appellate courts. His clients include automobile manufacturers, automotive suppliers, lending institutions, technology companies, property management companies, hospitality companies, and building contractors.

•            •            •

Bodman PLC is pleased to announce that Melissa Moore, a member of the firm’s Litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution Practice Group, was appointed to the Oakland 
County Bar Foundation’s Board of Trustees.

Based in the firm’s Troy office, Moore represents clients in complex commercial litigation matters throughout the country, from investigation and counseling through discovery, trial, and appeals, along with extrajudicial proceedings through arbitration and mediation. 

Moore’s clients include national financial institutions and outdoor advertising agencies, along with regional banks and commercial real property developers and owners. Besides litigation matters, Moore also advises clients in business and corporate transactions.

•            •            •

Rossman PC is pleased to announce that Mark C. Rossman has been named to DBusiness magazine’s Top Lawyers list for 2026 in the field of Commercial Litigation.
In addition, Rossman PC is proud to announce that Linda R. Oszust was made an equity partner with the firm. 

Oszust leads commercial litigation trial teams at Rossman and is the director of Business Operations. She recently won a $5,000,000 Business Court jury verdict in a business litigation matter.

•            •            •

Panagos Kennedy PLLC has announced that Speros B. Panagos has joined the firm in Troy as an intellectual property litigator and registered patent attorney.

Panagos is in his fifth year of legal practice and focuses on intellectual property and business law, including matters involving patents, trade secrets, and trademarks. Prior to joining Panagos Kennedy PLLC, he practiced at Gordon, Rees, Scully, Mansukhani LLP.

Panagos earned his law degree from the University of Illinois Chicago School of Law and his Bachelor of Science degree from Grand Valley State University.

John Marshall, the great early chief justice, believed that the Constitution should be a document understood broadly by its principles. He wrote: “We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding ... intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” Today, the Supreme Court seems to have chosen to forget.

By Michael Waldman

John Marshall, the great early chief justice, believed that the Constitution should be a document understood broadly by its principles. He wrote: “We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding ... intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” Today, the Supreme Court seems to have chosen to forget.

The conservative supermajority has made clear that it is applying originalism as the central method to interpret the Constitution. It’s a radical approach purporting to freeze the charter in time and interpret its words only with their supposed original public meaning in 1787. Litigants seeking to roll back rights and cripple the federal government have taken the Court’s cue and are loading up their opinions with junk history.

We have many critiques — more on that below. But like it or not, this is the current situation for people fighting for rights and justice before the Court.

It’s why the Brennan Center has done something new. Last week, we published ahandbook detailing how to recognize and respond to originalist arguments — a hands-on manual for lawyers and judges who find themselves in the funhouse of nutty linguistics and historical muck and haven’t the foggiest idea of how to pretend to be historians.

My colleague Tom Wolf writes:

“Our report distills the insights we’ve been sharing with our allies in the litigation trenches. It gives attorneys practical advice for spotting, analyzing, and defeating shoddy history in their cases. Our guide is based on the idea that lawyers facing originalist arguments don’t have to become historians or default into “doing originalism.” Lawyers can still lawyer, using court decisions and critical thinking to take originalist claims off the table. Our guide shows them how. And — for those situations where lawyers have to get into the historical details — it walks through steps they can take to work better with historians, put forward more accurate history when that’s appropriate, avoid mistakes that can weaken their cases, and use history in non-originalist ways.

“The lawyers on the front lines protecting our democracy are busy. So, our guide gets right to the point. It offers a battery of bite-size tips, supported with extensive citations to case law, scholarly literature, and court filings that lawyers can quickly adapt for their briefs and oral arguments.”

Ironically, there is no “history and tradition” of the Supreme Court working this way. More than most realize, the Supreme Court’s embrace of originalism is a recent phenomenon. It only truly took hold in 2022, with Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (purporting to rely on the Constitution’s original meaning to repeal the right to an abortion) and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (which said, in effect, that current public safety concerns could not constitutionally be a basis for gun regulation).

Before that, the only major originalist decisions were 2008’s DC v. Heller, which found a right to individual gun ownership under the Second Amendment. Oh, and Dred Scott ... which the originalists don’t talk about very much.

Today, the Court is spotty in its application of this newfangled theory. Trump v. United States, which granted presidents vast immunity from criminal prosecution, wasn’t the tiniest bit originalist. A look at the founding era would have found little support for a monarchical presidency.

Now the Court is considering major questions of presidential power and constitutional rights. Questioning during the argument about Trump’s tariffs seemed to turn on early federal practices. The Trump administration is attempting to eliminate birthright citizenship for the children of certain immigrants, based on a rewriting of the 14th Amendment that recalls the spirit of Dred Scott.

In the case that asks whether a president can fire a member of the Federal Trade Commission, questions focused more on issues of the structure of the federal government — perhaps because the Court already settled on a flawed historical account of the president’s removal power inearlier cases and seems convinced it can protect the Federal Reserve with a historicallyspecious carveout. If the Court lets the firing go forward, it will overrule Humphrey’s Executor, a 1935 case that affirmed the constitutionality of protections for heads of independent agencies created by Congress. But as we argue on behalf of historian Jane Manners in afriend-of-the-court brief, legal limits on firing officials came much earlier, predating even the founding. Well aware of these limits, the framers expected Congress to be able to set the terms of executive offices.

The country has changed and thrived since the Constitutional Convention. As the United States grew from a few settlements along the East Coast to a continent-spanning nation with 350 million people, we found ways to do all the things a modern government must do. It makes little sense to try to govern in 2025 by trying to enforce the social mores of property-owning white men in the 1700s.

Over time, it seems clear that originalism has been wielded mostly as a tool to cloak conservative policy choices in historical and legal jargon. Yet we engage originalist arguments on their merits, because we must. And we must be able to respond more effectively.

It’s good to know the history. I’ve written three books on constitutional history — and it’s fascinating. But what matters most is not what happened in 1787, but what happened after.
————————
Michael Waldman is president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. A nonpartisan law and policy institute that focuses on improving systems of democracy and justice, the Brennan Center is a leading national voice on voting rights, money in politics, criminal justice reform, and constitutional law. Waldman, a constitutional lawyer and writer, has led the center since 2005.

This is the third commentary in a series describing the perspectives of the Founding Fathers on “thinking like a scientist.” 

By Samuel Damren

This is the third commentary in a series describing the perspectives of the Founding Fathers on “thinking like a scientist.” 

The first two commentaries focused on Benjamin Franklin. This commentary will discuss an individual well known to Colonial leaders but less familiar in the present day: David Rittenhouse (1732-96). 

Rittenhouse was “America’s Newton.”  A child genius and the son of farmers, Rittenhouse received only a basic education and thereafter self-taught.  At age 13, he mastered Newton’s calculus as well as the laws of gravity and motion.  

Rittenhouse would go on to construct models of paper mills, then working clocks, tools and as an adult, scientific instruments including two orreries – mechanical scale models of the Solar System – still in existence at Princeton and the University of Pennsylvania.

Rittenhouse’s report on the transit path of Venus in 1769 brought international fame as an astronomer.  The telescope he utilized to make the detailed observations was of his own making.   An Oration “Promoting Useful Knowledge” that Rittenhouse delivered in February 1775 to the American Philosophical Society, which was originally founded by Benjamin Franklin, is the focus of this commentary.  

The Oration was later published in a pamphlet addressed to the delegates of the Continental Congress “to whom the future liberties and, consequently, the virtue, improvement in science, of America are entrusted.”  Each delegate received a personal copy.

The Oration is of value today because it presents Rittenhouse’s views – in his own words – of what it means to “think like a scientist.”  Excerpts are set forth below. The headings are mine; the quoted text is from the Oration with guidance as to context and particular terms in brackets.

On the Relationship of Scientific Discovery to Religion.  “As truth is always consistent with itself, so many new proofs were furnished from time to time by new discoveries, that a mistaken interpretation of some passages in the Bible was compelled to give way to the force of astronomical evidence.

“Our religion teaches us what Philosophy could not have … But neither Religion nor Philosophy forbids us to believe that [the creator’s] infinite wisdom and power … may have frequently interposed in a manner quite incomprehensible to us, when [understanding] became necessary to the happiness of created beings.”

Implications with Respect to Other Worlds.  In the middle section of the Oration, Rittenhouse notes that advances in astronomy may include the discovery of planetary life elsewhere in the universe. He cleverly uses that possibility as a springboard to address several “hot-button” political issues.  

“How far indeed the inhabitants of the other planets may resemble man, we cannot pretend to say … If their inhabitants resemble man in their faculties and affections, let us suppose that they are wise enough to govern themselves according to the dictates that reason their creator has given them … Happy people!”

Rittenhouse then pivots to note that from the perspective of this “happy people,” existing governments on earth lack similar wisdom and proceeds to provide examples.

On Slavery and Racism.  First, Rittenhouse speculates that “inhabitants of the other planets” may be “more happy still, that all communication with us is [currently] denied.  We have neither corrupted you with our vices nor injured you by violence …  None of your sons and daughters, degraded from their native dignity, have been doomed to endless slavery by us in America, merely because their bodies maybe disposed to reflect or absorb the rays of light, in a way different from ours.”

On Greed.  Second, citing additional benefits resulting from the separation of worlds, Rittenhouse notes that “you [inhabitants of other worlds] are [also] effectively secured, alike from the rapacious hand of the haughty Spaniard, and of the unfeeling British nabob. Even British thunder [canons] impelled by British thirst of gain, cannot reach you.” [“British nabob” was a pejorative reference to “a conspicuously wealthy individual returning from India with a fortune.”]

On Luxury and Tyranny.  As an example of “tyrannical” government actions on earth, Rittenhouse next cites the highly contentious British colonial acts, such as the Stamp Act. These Colonial rules required Americans to import high-priced “luxury” goods through Britain rather than manufacture or obtain them elsewhere. They were then the subject of the incendiary colonial protests and boycotts that would spark the Revolutionary War only two months after the Oration was first delivered.

“Luxury and tyranny …  pretend at first to be the patrons of science and philosophy, but at length fail not effectively to destroy them; agitated by these reflections, I am ready to wish that nature would raise her everlasting bars between the new and old world; and make voyage to Europe as impracticable as one to the moon … Let our harbours, our doors, our hearts, be shut against luxury.”  

The Benefits of Science.  In closing, Rittenhouse turns “to consider [the] happy effects of science, on the human mind … it is of great service to mankind, in banishing bigotry and superstition from amongst us … to dilate the heart with universal benevolence, and to enlarge its views.  

[Science] does this without propagating a single point of doctrine contrary to common sense, or the most cultivated reason. It flatters no fashionable princely vice, or national depravity. It encourages not the libertine by relaxing any of the precepts of morality.” 

Rittenhouse’s ambitions for science to have a central role in transforming American life were reflective of Revolutionary times.   Historians suggest that his idealism and optimism, in fact, influenced the selection of a circle of thirteen stars in the republic’s first flag symbolizing American democracy as a “new Constellation” in the progress of humankind.

The next commentary in this series contrasts current government policy and attitudes toward the scientific community with the respect that the Founding Fathers had for “thinking like a scientist.”
————————
Samuel Damren is a retired Detroit lawyer and author of “What Justice Looks Like.”

Chanukah will never be the same again.
The Holiday of Lights will, from now on, be filled with sadness, and I will ask my children and grandchildren to never forget Bondi Beach in their future commemorations of the holiday.

By Berl Falbaum

Chanukah will never be the same again.

The Holiday of Lights will, from now on, be filled with sadness, and I will ask my children and grandchildren to never forget Bondi Beach in their future commemorations of the holiday.

My family will light a ninth candle—a special one for Bondi Beach—this year.

Underneath our grief are many questions. Why? How can this happen?  What are the causes?  

These are difficult questions filled with many complexities. I am not a scholar, psychiatrist or historian but some answers, for me at least, are obvious.  I’ll deal with just a few of them.

First and perhaps foremost is the media’s relentless assault on Israel for its role in the war against Hamas.  As I have written in many columns on the slanted coverage, hardly a day went by when there was not one story castigating the Jewish state whether it involved criticism from a world leader or emotional videos on TV news stations of Palestinian suffering.

And it was not subtle. Israel was the villain throughout the world.

Meanwhile, the terrorist organization’s charter calls for, not a two-state solution, but for killing every Jew hiding behind a tree or under a rock.  That has been embraced by the world, if not overtly, then by its silence and holding Hamas basically blameless for the war.

Let us not forget about the United Nations (U.N.) which was always considered a neutral party by the media when they wrote about the conflict. 

Neutral? According to U.N. Watch, a monitoring organization, since 2006, the U.N. Human Rights Council has adopted 112 resolutions condemning Israel while it turned its sights on Syria 45 times and Iran 16 times.

By the end 2025, the General Assembly will have considered 17 anti-Israel resolutions but only 11 for the rest of the world. That’s close to 200 countries.

This “neutral” international organization dedicated to world peace did not even condemn the hideous, murderous October 7 massacre; instead, the U.N. called for a ceasefire.

Now, let’s turn the focus on our home turf and examine some other possible contributing factors.

We have a president, Donald Trump—the supposed leader of the free world—who has trafficked in antisemitism for 10 years. In case some have forgotten:

—He distributed antisemitic campaign materials in his first campaign. A leaflet featured a sketch of Hillary Clinton set against a background of $100 bills with the headline, “History Made.” Her image was set over the Star of David with a caption, “Most corrupt candidate ever!”

—He called Jewish real estate businessmen “brutal killers…not very nice people,” but said they would vote for him because they wanted to protect their wealth. (When I read that, I did not believe it, but I found the text of the speech on the White House website.)  

—He said the only people he wanted counting his money were those wearing yarmulkes every day.

—He often referred to “Shylock” when talking about money leaders.

—He feted antisemites at Mar-a-Lago, including the rapper, Ye, and the white supremacist, Nicholas Fuentes.

—He maintained that protestors in Charlottesville who vowed that “Jews will not replace us” included some very nice people.

—He embraced the Proud Boys, telling them to “Stand Back and Stand By,” and aligned himself also with the Oath Keepers. Both organizations have antisemitic leanings.

—His has appointed several people who have histories with antisemitism to his two administrations.

—He is close to Baptist pastors, John Hagee and Robert Jeffress, who believe Jews will go to Hell for their beliefs. He invited both to deliver prayers at the ceremonies when the U.S. embassy was moved from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem.

—He supports Israel not because it is a Jewish state but because Evangelicals, who make up much of his base, believe Israel will be the site of the second coming of Christ.

Jonathan Weisman in his book, “(((Semitism))): Being Jewish in America in the Age of Trump” (St. Martin’s Press, 2018) wrote that Trump ran the most antisemitic presidential campaign in modern U.S. history. 

Now, to New York which has the largest Jewish population outside of Israel. The mayor-elect, Zohran Mamdani, has a long record of antisemitic and anti-Israel rhetoric, going back to his college years.

In his campaign, Mamdani refused to support Israel as a Jewish state. He would not condemn the slogan, “globalize the intifada,” and, as the New York Times Political Columnist Bret Stephens pointed out, the Bondi Beach terrorists were, indeed, “globalizing the intifada.”  

“…[T]hey (the terrorists) were taking to heart slogans like ‘resistance is justified’ and ‘by any means necessary’ which have become ubiquitous at anti-Israel rallies the world over,” Stephens wrote.

Surely, there are other causes for Bondi Beach, but when you have such powerful forces like the leader of the free world and the mayor of one of the world’s most politically potent cities, infecting our political discourse with anti-Jewish hate, it can lead to a Bondi Beach. And the media’s negative and distorted coverage of Israel gave them and others the cover they coveted.

And, sadly, both Trump and Mamdani, received substantial support from the Jewish electorate. Trump received 20-30 percent of the Jewish vote in the two presidential elections, and Mamdani’s total was even higher in the New York primary and general elections.

Finally, to emphasize: This has nothing to do with the many complex issues surrounding the continuing Arab-Israeli conflict. Disagreement—even vehement disagreement—is to be expected and can and should be dealt with civility.

This is about hate, bile, malice, prejudice, distain, hostility. And the world has failed to differentiate between the two. Enough of the pretentious “intellectual” arguments that “anti-Zionism is not antisemitism.”

So, our family will light the candles, admittedly with trembling hands and some tears, but like the Maccabees, we will celebrate. We will do so with heavy hearts but, while shaken and worried about the future of the Jewish people in the world, we will not surrender or lose hope.

My wife and I will pray that the light will continue to shine over the Jews not just for eight days, but for our great-great-great ...
————————
Berl Falbaum is a veteran journalist and author of 12 books.

Plunkett Cooney recently expanded its Transportation Law Practice Group with the addition of attorney Cody R. Ellwanger.

Plunkett Cooney recently expanded its Transportation Law Practice Group with the addition of attorney Cody R. Ellwanger.

A member of the firm’s Bloomfield Hills office, Ellwanger focuses his practice primarily on the defense of claims involving bodily injury and Michigan No-Fault personal injury protection.

Ellwanger represents national insurers, their agents and policyholders in first- and third-party motor vehicle liability matters, as well as uninsured and underinsured motorist, breach of contract and intentional torts claims. He has defended his clients in cases involving fraud by policyholders, failure to provide reasonable proof of loss and other violations of insurance contracts. Ellwanger also has experience resolving premises liability, medical malpractice, criminal enterprises, and negligence law claims.

In addition to his transportation law practice, Ellwanger serves as an attorney magistrate in the Oakland County 52-1 District Court in Novi where he presides over small claims trials, landlord-tenant proceedings, informal hearings for traffic infractions, and criminal arraignments for defendants charged with misdemeanors and/or felonies in Oakland County.

Ellwanger is a 2021 graduate from Cooley Law School. He received his undergraduate degree from Northwood University in 2016.

•            •            •

Tim Sulolli, a partner at Goodman Acker, has been selected as a 2025 Leader in the Law by Michigan Lawyers Weekly. The awards ceremony was held Friday, November 14, at The Mint at Michigan First Conference Center.

“Being recognized as a Leader in the Law is a tremendous honor,” said Sulolli. “This distinction reflects not only my work in the courtroom but also the mentorship, collaboration and trust of colleagues and clients who have supported me throughout my career. I am deeply committed to advocating for justice and making a difference for those who have been injured due to negligence.”

A personal injury attorney, Sulolli has more than two decades of experience handling medical malpractice, motor vehicle accidents, and premises liability cases. He has earned repeated recognition as a Michigan Super Lawyer (2016–2024). 
Throughout his career, he has secured multi-million-dollar verdicts and settlements on behalf of his clients.

Sulolli earned his B.B.A. from the University of Michigan-Dearborn and his law degree from the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law. He began his career under the mentorship of attorney Geoffrey Fieger before joining Goodman Acker in 2003, where he serves as an equity partner.

In addition to his legal practice, Sulolli  is a former executive board member of the Michigan Association for Justice and actively participates in the Albanian American Bar Association. He mentors young attorneys at Goodman Acker and is heavily engaged in Detroit’s Albanian community.

•            •            •

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer recently announced the reappointment of attorney Steve Birenbaum to the State 9-1-1 Committee.  He will serve a term that expires December 31, 2027. 

Berenbaum is the director of regulatory relations for AT&T. He earned a bachelor of science, a master of business administration, and a law degree from Wayne State University Law School. 

The 9-1-1 Committee and its 21 member organizations work to promote the successful development, implementation, and operation of 9-1-1 systems around the state.

•            •            •

Miller Canfield is pleased to welcome attorney Rebecca Noeske enhancing the firm’s immigration team which is recognized for guiding employers, universities, health systems, and individuals through today’s rapidly evolving immigration landscape.

Noeske brings experience counseling clients through employment-based and family-based immigration processes, including high-skilled petitions in the O-1 and EB categories. She joins the firm from Ellis Porter PLC in Troy where she developed a practice representing companies and professionals across multiple industries.

Noeske earned her law degree from Georgetown University Law Center and her undergraduate degree in economics from the University of Michigan. Her background includes work with leading immigration law firms, an internship with former Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Bridget McCormack, and public service experience in Washington, D.C.

Noeske will be based in the firm’s Detroit office.

•            •            •

Williams, Williams, Rattner, & Plunkett PC is pleased to announce that six firm attorneys have been named to DBusiness magazine’s Top Lawyers list for 2026. 

The WWRP attorneys included in this year’s DBusiness Top Lawyers list are:

Alexander Ayar, Litigation/Commercial

Robert Bick, Mergers & Acquisitions Law

Robert B. Labe, Trusts and Estates

Michael Petrus, Litigation/Commercial

Richard D. Rattner, Land Use & Zoning

C. Kim Shierk, Real Estate Law

The Top Lawyers recognition follows other legal accolades for these and other firm attorneys in recent months, including 2025 Super Lawyers and 2026 Best Lawyers.  Additionally, in another firm distinction from DBusiness, WWRP President and Managing Partner John W. Crowe was again included in the magazine’s annual Detroit 500.

•            •            •

Fishman Stewart PLLC is pleased to announce that firm partner and co-founder Michael Stewart is among the honorees recently recognized by the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) with the 2025 Pro Bono Award at the 
AIPLA annual conference in Washington D.C.

The recognition is sponsored by the AIPLA Pro Bono Committee and is given to select AIPLA members who have contributed at least 50 hours to the USPTO Pro Bono Program. While Stewart was highlighted as an AIPLA member, he acknowledges the tremendous efforts of Fishman Stewart colleagues and peer firms who provide pro bono services through a joint program with the USPTO’s Detroit office and the State Bar of Michigan’s Patent Pro Bono Project. The project provides free legal assistance with the patent application process to low-income, independent inventors and small businesses.

“I view this award as a celebration of the collective efforts of attorneys at Fishman Stewart and other Michigan-based IP law firms who are dedicated to the Michigan Pro Bono Project. Every hour adds up in assisting the creative efforts of inventors who might not otherwise have access to legal representation to file a patent that protects their intellectual property,” Stewart said. “It must also be noted that the State Bar of Michigan does an outstanding job managing the program. I believe it is the gold standard of pro bono patent programs nationwide.”

Stewart was instrumental in promoting the initial World IP Day programs throughout the United States, working in tandem with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the USPTO. World IP Day has been celebrated every year on April 26 since 2016. Stewart also played a key role in the establishment of the Public Educucation Committee within the AIPLA. More recently, he has been involved with the Engineering Society of Detroit’s annual writing contest for aspiring engineers, which Fishman Stewart sponsors.

•            •            •

Foley & Lardner LLP is pleased to announce that Daljit Doogal has been re-elected to serve as chairman and CEO for a second four-year term beginning May 1, 2026, upon expiration of his current term and effective through April 30, 2030.

“Foley’s culture revolves around people – our own personnel, our clients, and our communities. It’s a privilege to lead this great firm and see it excel as we continue to drive our strategic plan forward,” said Doogal. “Credit for Foley’s 
accomplishments is all owed to our talented attorneys and business professionals who routinely deliver innovative and impactful solutions to our clients. We are operating from a position of strength and aggressively growing our footprint, but 
our culture remains the cornerstone of everything we do.”

Since Doogal’s first term began, Foley has promoted 63 lawyers to partnership and welcomed nearly 530 attorneys – including 70 lateral partners and 278 new associates and law graduates – adding more scale and greater bench strength across Foley’s key sectors, including energy and infrastructure, health care and life sciences, innovative technology, and manufacturing.

“We’ve seen a significant surge in demand for our services in all of these sectors indicating a clear signal that our strategy is succeeding,” said Doogal. “By scaling our operations and deepening our bench, we are better equipped than ever to deliver holistic client service. We are deeply committed to continuing this growth to further strengthen our firm and the value we provide to our clients.

“This is a remarkable period for Foley. We are advancing our goals around our clients, our people, innovation, and investment in our sectors,” said Doogal. “As we develop the firm’s next strategic plan to be introduced next summer, these goals will not change. We will continue to focus on smart and strategic growth, deepening our culture of service excellence and cross-servicing clients, and accelerating our investment in AI and technology.”

•            •            •

Taft Detroit partner-in-charge Mark Cooper has been named to Michigan Lawyers Weekly’s 2025 Managing Partners Spotlight. 

Cooper is partner-in-charge of Taft Detroit, responsible for the strategic direction for the firm’s Southfield and Detroit offices. He counsels a diverse set of clients nationwide on a variety of matters, including risk management, commercial disputes, real estate litigation, business torts and construction and contract disputes, and all aspects of insurance, from both a legal and business perspective.

The 2026 election will take place in a political system that is divided, discordant, flagrantly gerrymandered, and marked by widening racial discrimination. Thank Chief Justice John Roberts and his colleagues on the Supreme Court. And the supermajority of highly activist justices seems poised, even eager, to make things appreciably worse.

By Michael Waldman

The 2026 election will take place in a political system that is divided, discordant, flagrantly gerrymandered, and marked by widening racial discrimination. Thank Chief Justice John Roberts and his colleagues on the Supreme Court. And the supermajority of highly activist justices seems poised, even eager, to make things appreciably worse.

In 2019, in Rucho v. Common Cause, the Court refused to adopt any standard to police partisan gerrymandering, and it even prevented federal courts from hearing that claim. Fast-forward through a census, six years of line-drawing, and a flurry of lawsuits, and predictably, our democracy has become much less fair.

Redistricting is supposed to take place once a decade, after the census. In fact, that’s why the census is written into the Constitution. But earlier this year, Texas abruptly drew new congressional maps in a gambit to squeeze out five extra seats for Republicans. It was in the middle of the decade and at the behest of someone who doesn’t live there (President Trump) — and all at the expense of Black and Latino voters. Even though 95 percent of population growth in the state came from those communities, the map’s main feature was fewer districts where those voters can elect their preferred candidates.

Bad, right? A panel of three federal judges agreed, temporarily blocking the map from being used in the upcoming election until a full trial could be held. Texas first resisted allegations of a partisan gerrymander, then insisted it was actually acting at the behest of the Justice Department for racial reasons, then said it was, in fact, a partisan power grab. (“I don’t see race. Just Democrats.”) Talk about a Texas two-step! Amid these gyrations, the court found it illegal.

Enter the Supreme Court. Last week it blocked the lower court’s ruling, thus allowing the election to go forward with freshly gerrymandered maps. It’s yet another brazen use of the shadow docket — the Court’s supposed emergency docket (with limited briefing and no oral argument) — to hand Trump a win with only a few sentences of explanation.

Where does that leave things? The Texas seat grab set off a partisan arms race across the country. Furious Democrats acted. California voters overwhelmingly supported drawing new Democratic-leaning congressional districts there to counter the GOP gains in Texas. Republicans in Indiana and Florida are moving to redraw lines, while Democrats in Illinois, Maryland, and Virginia aim to do the same.

With all this headbutting, the gerrymander war of 2025 could turn out to be close to a wash in partisan terms. Moreover, voters may have their own ideas. If Democrats win big, as recent races have suggested is possible, the gerrymander might produce extra GOP losses. (The technical term for this, believe it or not, is a “dummymander.”)

All that sound and fury, in short, might signify . . . not exactly nothing, but not a decisive partisan gain.

That’s where the next big intervention by the Supreme Court would come in. And its impact could well be even more dramatic — and if possible, more harmful.

The Court seems poised to demolish the effectiveness of what’s left of the Voting Rights Act. Recently, in Louisiana v. Callais, it heard arguments about whether the law’s Section 2 remains constitutional. For decades, that provision effectively barred states, particularly in the South, from enacting maps that dilute or cancel out the voting power of racial minorities. As our friend-of-the-court brief pointed out, the provision has transformed both Congress and legislative bodies across the country. And the disparity in registration rates between white and Black voters dropped from nearly 30 percentage points in the early 1960s to 8 percentage points just a decade later. Now the justices seem ready to wreck Section 2 if not strike it down entirely.

This would not only mark a shameful retreat from federal action to protect racial equality and fair representation. It could have a dramatic and specific impact: A bad ruling, especially early, could be followed by another wave of redistricting in coming months, maybe even in time for the 2026 election.

As my colleague Kareem Crayton writes, “The argument invites a return to the era when race was a barrier to entry for political representation — the cruel and painful experience of political exclusion that made passage of the Voting Rights Act necessary in the first place.”

Nate Cohn of The New York Times has crunched the numbers and predicts that an extreme Supreme Court ruling could allow Republican states to eliminate between 6 and 12 districts currently held by Democrats. That would be a margin larger than the House majority either party has had in recent years.

When politicians pick voters — whether based on race or politics — instead of the other way around, our elections become less fair and less democratic. The country would slide toward even greater division and balkanization. Republican voters in Massachusetts (where there are no Republican members of Congress even though Trump won 37 percent of the vote) have no party representation in Congress, while Democrats in Texas (where Kamala Harris won 42 percent) would have only about 7 of the state’s 38 seats. John Adams famously said that the legislature must be an “exact portrait of the people at large.” The current portrait doesn’t bear much of a resemblance.

So what’s the answer?

There must, above all, be national standards that apply to red states and blue states alike. The Constitution gives Congress that power. It should enact national redistricting rules that would ban partisan gerrymandering, bar mid-decade redistricting, and ensure fair representation for voters across the country. In 2022, it almost did: The Freedom to Vote Act would have banned mid-decade redistricting and set other standards. And the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would have strengthened protections against racially discriminatory maps. Both came achingly close to enactment.

And then the ideologues on the Supreme Court should stop meddling in elections. Over the past 15 years, the Court demolished campaign finance rules in Citizens United, wrecked the Voting Rights Act starting in Shelby County, and gave ex-presidents vast and unprecedented immunity from prosecution for crimes committed in office — thus ensuring no legal accountability for candidate, now president, Trump.

In a season when it seems increasingly clear that the justices plan to hand President Trump even more power, inexcusable rulings and interventions in partisan politics will leave a very sour taste for many voters. The Supreme Court itself, increasingly, will become an issue in American politics. That’s as it should be.

————————

Michael Waldman is president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. A nonpartisan law and policy institute that focuses on improving systems of democracy and justice, the Brennan Center is a leading national voice on voting rights, money in politics, criminal justice reform, and constitutional law. Waldman, a constitutional lawyer and writer, has led the center since 2005