This advisory summarizes an article by Neil Youngdahl, originally published in the Michigan Appellate Practice Journal. To read the full article, please visit the Michigan Appellate Practice Journal Spring 2026.
Lawsuits filed outside of Michigan can sometimes raise complex and unresolved questions of Michigan law. Rather than attempting to predict how the Michigan Supreme Court would rule on an issue of first impression, federal courts, tribal courts, and appellate courts from other states may certify a legal question directly to the Michigan Supreme Court for guidance.
Under Michigan Court Rule 7.308(A)(2)(a), a court may certify a question when Michigan law could resolve the issue, and there is no controlling Michigan Supreme Court precedent. The Michigan Supreme Court then has discretion to either answer the certified question or decline to answer it under MCR 7.308(A)(5).
Although certified questions are an important procedural tool for resolving unsettled issues of Michigan law, they remain relatively uncommon before the Michigan Supreme Court.
What Is a Certified Question in Michigan?
A certified question is a procedural mechanism that allows a non-Michigan court to request an authoritative interpretation of Michigan law from the Michigan Supreme Court. Certification is most often used when:
- A federal court is deciding a case involving Michigan law
- There is no controlling Michigan Supreme Court precedent
- The legal issue is outcome-determinative
- Existing Michigan case law appears unsettled or unclear
The certification process helps promote consistency in the interpretation of Michigan law and reduces the likelihood that federal courts will incorrectly predict how Michigan courts would rule on a legal issue.
Michigan Court Rule 7.308 and Certified Questions
Michigan Court Rule 7.308 governs certified questions presented to the Michigan Supreme Court. The rule provides that certification may occur when a federal court, tribal court, or another state’s appellate court encounters a question of Michigan law that lacks controlling precedent.
Unlike applications for leave to appeal, however, the Michigan Court Rules provide very little guidance regarding when the Michigan Supreme Court should accept or answer a certified question. The absence of formal criteria has contributed to uncertainty surrounding the certification process.
How Often Does the Michigan Supreme Court Answer Certified Questions?
Certified questions are relatively rare in Michigan appellate practice. Since 2000, the Michigan Supreme Court has received approximately 19 certified questions and answered only eight of them.
Although the answer rate is significantly higher than the Court’s typical grant rate for leave-to-appeal applications, the statistics still show that the Court frequently declines certification requests.
Between 2007 and 2016, the Michigan Supreme Court answered five out of six certified questions, making that period one of the most active eras for certified-question jurisprudence in Michigan. More recently, however, the Court has declined several certified questions in a row, signaling a more restrictive approach.
The Court last answered a certified question in October 2020 during litigation involving the Governor’s emergency powers and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Why Certified Questions Matter in Michigan Litigation
Certified questions can play a significant role in complex litigation involving unsettled issues of state law. They allow federal courts and other jurisdictions to obtain authoritative guidance directly from the Michigan Supreme Court instead of relying on predictions about how Michigan law may evolve.
Supporters of certification argue that the process:
- Preserves Michigan’s authority to interpret Michigan law
- Promotes uniformity in legal decisions
- Strengthens principles of federalism and judicial comity
- Reduces inconsistent interpretations between state and federal courts
Beaubien v. Trivedi and the Future of Certified Questions
The Michigan Supreme Court recently revisited the certified-question process in Beaubien v. Trivedi, a case involving the constitutionality of Michigan’s noneconomic damages cap in medical malpractice litigation under MCL 600.1483.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan certified the constitutional question after concluding that prior Michigan Supreme Court precedent appeared to conflict with later appellate decisions and evolving constitutional analysis.
The Michigan Supreme Court declined to answer the certified question.
Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh’s Concurring Opinion
In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh emphasized that the certified-question process is intended to resolve genuinely unsettled questions of Michigan law, not to revisit issues already decided by the Michigan Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Cavanagh explained that prior Michigan Supreme Court decisions upholding the constitutionality of Michigan’s medical malpractice damages cap remained controlling precedent, regardless of ongoing criticism or disagreement.
She also noted that the Michigan Court of Appeals had repeatedly rejected the same constitutional arguments raised in Beaubien.
The Role of Michigan Court of Appeals Decisions in Certification
One of the most notable aspects of Chief Justice Cavanagh’s concurrence was her discussion of the Michigan Court of Appeals’ role in determining whether certification is appropriate.
Although only Michigan Supreme Court decisions constitute binding precedent under MCR 7.308, Chief Justice Cavanagh suggested that consistent Court of Appeals decisions interpreting Supreme Court precedent may still demonstrate that Michigan law is sufficiently settled to make certification unnecessary.
This reasoning could influence how federal courts evaluate future requests for certified questions involving Michigan law.
Key Takeaways on Certified Questions in Michigan
Certified questions remain an important but infrequently used component of Michigan appellate practice. While the procedure allows federal and out-of-state courts to seek guidance on unresolved questions of Michigan law, the Michigan Supreme Court continues to exercise significant discretion in deciding whether to answer those questions.
Recent opinions, including Chief Justice Cavanagh’s concurrence in Beaubien v. Trivedi, suggest that the Court may view certification as a narrow tool intended to clarify unsettled law rather than reopen established precedent.
As a result, litigants considering certification should carefully evaluate whether a legal issue is truly unresolved under existing Michigan Supreme Court and Michigan Court of Appeals authority before seeking review.
