Columns

My brother-in-law, age 37, is a cryptocurrency fanatic while my father, age 87, is a Warren Buffett devotee. My brother-in-law has travelled the world attending conferences discussing the possibilities of cryptocurrencies.

By J.J. Conway

My brother-in-law, age 37, is a cryptocurrency fanatic while my father, age 87, is a Warren Buffett devotee. My brother-in-law has travelled the world attending conferences discussing the possibilities of cryptocurrencies. My father attended the Berkshire Hathaway May 2009 annual meeting to better understand the aftermath of the financial crisis. My brother-in-law has spent most of his professional life working virtually while my dad went to an office every day. During the holidays, my father dons a coat and tie while my brother-in-law wears a Bitcoin ugly sweater. They are from two different generations, and they represent two different approaches to investing and retirement planning. The Trump Administration is going with my brother-in-law on this one. 

In what are expected to be a package of executive orders and regulatory advisories issued by the President and his Secretary of Labor, the administration has announced plans to allow 401k accounts to invest in new retirement products. The administration announced that it intends to allow employees to make investments in cryptocurrencies, private equity, hedge funds, and precious metals as they save for retirement. This is a seismic shift in U.S. public policy. 

How it will turn out, no one really knows. 

For those of my father’s generation, the key to successful retirement planning was to always “pay yourself first” - putting money into blue chip stocks and government bonds. His generation believed that when it came to investing, the more boring, the better. My father’s generation used dollar-cost averaging, a disciplined and patient investing approach with the idea that steadiness will lead to financial security. Investing in low-cost index funds and government bonds is typical of this saving style. The idea is that by purchasing shares in the market and government bonds, the investments will do the work themselves – no stock-picking or reading complex financial statements. 

In the relatively new world of cryptocurrencies, the “investments” appear to yield incredible sums of tradable wealth rather quickly. Stories of overnight millionaires zooming around Miami on miniyachts abound. Although, to be fair, these stories of great wealth-making are balanced out by stories of fraud and organized crime organizations taking advantage of blockchain technologies to launder money or pull off scams. To the outsider, crypto can seem risky and scary. 

Along with crypto, another new frontier is allowing savers to invest in “alternative” investments like private equity and hedge funds. While such investment products have a longer history than cryptocurrencies, they have traditionally been legally restricted to institutional investors and wealthy individuals. 

Alternative investments have been associated with higher-than-average management fees and restrictions on withdrawals. The standard management fee charges on private market investments are a 2% sales charge and with a 20% annual charge on all profits (there may be other fees as well) along with restrictions on withdrawals. Investments of this kind can limit the ability to withdraw for as long as ten years. 

What is unclear is just how this new selection of retirement investment options will work practically. There are going to be some obvious administrative challenges. For example, how will these new private investments be sold to new investors, and how will they be priced? Most alternative investments are limited partnerships – how will that change? Alternative investments also rely on secondary markets to offload underperforming assets or to quickly extract cash. How will that work? How will cryptocurrencies be priced ten years from now?

There seems to be a looming issue over the appropriateness of the management fees charged and what type of liquidity will be available for savers and retirees.

Cryptocurrencies appear to rely upon a purely market valuation (whatever someone is willing to pay is the price) so the management fee structure of both types of investments will have to be created. 

In recent years, extensive litigation has been filed against employers for selecting investment options that were high cost. Many successful lawsuits have been brought against benefit plans arguing that the management fees charged on investment accounts were excessive. Similarly, many large institutional investors, like Yale University and the University of California, are trying to exit private markets. They have been forced to offload their private equity and hedge fund investments into the secondary market, reportedly at some discount (or in some cases pairing their most valuable investments with their underperforming ones to attract buyers).

Perhaps realizing that ERISA’s fiduciary duty owed to retirement savers in 401k plans might conflict with offering cryptocurrencies or alternative investments in employee benefit plans, the Trump administration is floating safe harbor rules that might alleviate employer plan sponsors from fiduciary liability for offering such funds. It may be a hard sell to defend the cost and suitability of these investments for the average saver under ERISA’s rules. 

Indeed, this is a Brave New World for 401k retirement plans – and it is one my dad’s generation will likely avoid, and one my brother-in-law’s generation appears ready to explore. 
————————
John Joseph (J.J.) Conway is an employee benefits and ERISA attorney and litigator and founder of J.J. Conway Law in Royal Oak.

Two students in Michigan Law’s Child Welfare Appellate Clinic won a major case in the Michigan Court of Appeals that restored the parental rights of a clinic client. 
The opinion in In re Boshell/Shelton, Minors, published July 2, stated that the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) should not have been involved in the life of the client and her children and that the termination of her parental rights was inappropriate. 

By Sharon Morioka
Michigan Law

Two students in Michigan Law’s Child Welfare Appellate Clinic won a major case in the Michigan Court of Appeals that restored the parental rights of a clinic client. 

The opinion in In re Boshell/Shelton, Minors, published July 2, stated that the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) should not have been involved in the life of the client and her children and that the termination of her parental rights was inappropriate. 

While helping secure justice for the mother, the clinic also provided a learning opportunity for 3Ls Augie DeLuna and Nadia Fassa. They worked during the 2024–2025 academic year to develop an argument on behalf of the mother, who was caught up in a case involving the tragic death of a child who was neither related to her nor under her care. 

Vivek Sankaran, ’01, clinical professor of law and director of the Child Welfare Appellate Clinic, guided DeLuna and Fassa’s work and praised them following the court’s opinion. 

“They had done such a great job on their brief that it was a very obvious decision for this court,” he said. 

Tearing a family apart

The clinic’s client, “Ms. C.,” is the mother of six. She shares three daughters with her former partner, identified as S. Shelton in the court opinion. One daughter lived with Shelton, while the two others lived with Ms. C. and sometimes visited Shelton. Ms. C. also has three sons with her current partner, identified as Z. Boshell. Her sons bore no relation to S. Shelton. 

When Shelton was charged with the torture and murder of his current partner’s son, the DHHS sought custody of all of Ms. C.’s children, even though she was only tangentially associated with Shelton’s case. DHHS alleged that she should have known about the boy’s abuse because her two daughters visited their father at his house. 

Her three daughters were placed with their grandmother while her sons were released to Boshell on the condition that their mother leave the house. Ms. C. eventually moved into a motel.

Following a trial, the trial court took jurisdiction over all six of the children, mainly due to the trial court’s finding of her “neglectfulness” because she didn’t know the circumstances surrounding the abuse of the little boy. The court also terminated her parental rights.

“They were trying to make sure that they covered all their bases,” said Fassa. “But what they ended up doing is tearing apart a family that had nothing to do with it.” 

Favorable decision

The case was one of six that the Wayne County Circuit Court assigned to the clinic in fall 2024. Sankaran then assigned the case to DeLuna and Fassa. 

While appellate lawyers have less client interaction than trial lawyers, the students met with Ms. C., who was considering dropping the appeal because of the trauma she and her children had suffered. When the students let her know she had a strong case, she decided to proceed. 

As they worked on the case, DeLuna and Fassa met weekly with fellow student-attorneys in the clinic and with Sankaran, a process that provided consistent feedback as they developed their brief. They also received feedback on their writing from Timothy Pinto, ’97, clinical professor of law. 

“Those meetings were a great way to communicate our concerns or talk through the legal issues that we were unsure about,” said DeLuna. 

They filed the brief at the end of the fall term. When the case came before the appeals court on July 1, Sankaran made the oral argument because DeLuna and Fassa were away at their summer jobs. 
“To my surprise, they didn’t even ask a question,” said Sankaran, “because they knew what they were going to do.” 

One day later, the court issued its opinion. 

“It was surreal that we won on all four of our arguments,” said DeLuna. “We would have been happy to win on just one, let alone all four.” 

Not only did the court quickly make its decision, it also issued a published opinion, which establishes a binding precedent that can help families experiencing similar situations in the future. 

Trust in her advocates

Once Fassa learned of the decision, she contacted her client, who was overjoyed to know she would regain her parental rights.

“I’ve been talking with her a bit since then, and I thanked her for putting so much trust in us,” said Fassa. “She was like, ‘No, thank you guys. I really wouldn’t have done this if it wasn’t for you; I would have dropped it.’” 

Both students took away from the experience the importance of client-centered lawyering. While it’s easy to get caught up in the process of a case, it’s necessary to remember that real people are involved. 

This fall, the clinic will receive a whole new set of cases from the court. 

While it is the only clinic in the country that represents parents on appeal in termination of parental rights cases, Sankaran would like to see similar clinics at other law schools. 

“It is another example of Michigan leading in this area,” said Sankaran. 

“I’m hoping that others will follow our lead and create more of these clinics, because in the appellate world we have a lot of work to do; a lot of mistakes are happening. These families need advocates to help them through that process.”

Question:  If you were operating a multi-million-dollar business and one of your divisions is losing an average of $40 million a year, would you close it?

By Berl Falbaum

Question:  If you were operating a multi-million-dollar business and one of your divisions is losing an average of $40 million a year, would you close it?

Exactly, that’s what I thought.

So, what is all the hoopla about the cancelation of “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert”?  According to several reports, the show has been losing millions for years -- as have other late-night shows -- so Paramount, the show’s owner, is tuning it out come next May.

My, oh, my, the breast-beating, particularly among Democrats because many of Colbert’s monologues eviscerate Donald Trump.

“This is nothing but politics,” was the general refrain.  If comedians are attacked it may lead to the dismantling of our Constitution, warned Sunny Hostin, co-host of “The View.”

Absolutely!  We cannot have comedians attacked. I remember studying in History 101 that the most controversial issue among the 39 delegates at the Constitutional Convention involved including language that protected comedians. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay devoted many pages to this issue in the Federalist Papers’ 38 articles.

Actually, that would be a pretty good Colbert one-liner.

Critics point out that Paramount’s decision was made because it needs the Trump’s administration’s approval for a $9 billion recapitalization deal involving a merger with Skydance Media. (The Federal Communications Commission approved the merger as I was writing this column.)

Even if this is true, so what?

Paramount is a private company and has every right to make political decisions -- true, we may like them and I don’t -- as long as they are not illegal.

Contributions to officeholders and candidates are political actions.  Those who donate large sums, do so hoping to “buy” access and/or influence.

Some years back, a businessman, who was supporting the sitting president was testifying before Congress when he was asked, somewhat haughtily: “Isn’t it true that you gave so much money to gain access?”

His answer ran along these lines: “Senator, yes, that is true, and if I thought I could gain more access, I would give even more.”

I always thought he should have been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor because it was, arguably, the only completely truthful answer ever offered in congressional testimony.

What about the law firms as well as ABC and CBC which caved into pressure from Trump?

Yes, I think the agreements were unseemly and disreputable.  “Cowardly” also comes to mind when reflecting on the decisions by the managements of these organizations. 

As a journalist, I was particularly offended that news companies did not stand their ground, hold firm and fight Trump in the courts.

But that is their right.  

Every business, along the way, makes political decisions, even small  ones. And I will speculate that everyone reading this article has been a “victim” of political decisions by bosses.

A hypothetical: I own a bakery and one of my major customers, also a neighbor, wants me to close a half-hour earlier because he does not like the traffic to my shop at dinner time. Doing so, however, would hurt other customers -- customers who are not as financially important to me. 

What do I do? I run the numbers and if rejecting the request would hurt me financially, I know what I would do. I don’t think I need to spell out my decision. That’s politics.

Does the show’s cancellation really deserve such an emotional-laden national debate? Some other “minor” issues come to mind like Gaza, Sudan, health insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, the environment, Ukraine, the deficit, and, oh yes, the threat of the use of nuclear weapons. The Atlantic Magazine just devoted its entire issue to the risks of nuclear war. Perhaps the next issue should be devoted to Colbert.

(Full disclosure: I have never -- as in “never” -- watched the Colbert Show nor other late-night comics. Even with my afternoon naps, I hardly make it through the 6 p.m. news.)

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren has called for an investigation to determine if Paramount’s decision was made because of politics.

She has been a senator for some 13 years and never in those years has she ever made a political decision nor has she witnessed one in the Senate.  She and her colleagues always vote on principle.
That’s another Colbert one -- actually two -- one-liners. She could be a Colbert replacement except she was serious.

Not be outdone, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and California Congressman Adam Schiff cried “politics” as well. The shame!

Sanders also charged that Paramount may have fired Colbert because the comedian had criticized Paramount on the air. Now, even if true, that actually makes sense to me. I would fire any employee who disparages me in front of millions. After all, I pay him/her.

A guess: If Sanders’ press secretary were to distribute a release that claims the senator’s policies would destroy democracy, I would guess Sanders would not give the employee a raise.

Okay, I did not want to write the following thinking it was self-evident.  Paramount is a business.  Its primary objective is to make money. It is not a political or charitable organization or one which is dedicated to the advancement of public policies. 

It makes decision to support its financial goals. 

With this column, I apologize to Colbert for never having watched him. I also hope that he did not squander his $15 million-a-year salary and saved enough to get by in retirement.

I wish it had happened to me. If it had, I would have smiled and supported the politics.

In his new book, Michigan Law’s Richard Primus argues against the long-standing orthodoxy that Congress can do only what the Constitution expressly authorizes it to do—and nothing more. 

By Sharon Morioka
Michigan Law

In his new book, Michigan Law’s Richard Primus argues against the long-standing orthodoxy that Congress can do only what the Constitution expressly authorizes it to do—and nothing more. 

Over the years, Primus, the Theodore J. St. Antoine Collegiate Professor of Law, has taught his students that the 10th Amendment to the Constitution limits the powers of the federal government to those enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, or elsewhere in the Constitution. But he gradually came to question that interpretation.

Here, he discusses the arguments that he lays out in his new book, The Oldest Constitutional Question: Enumeration and Federal Power (Harvard University Press, 2025).

1. The title of your book is ‘The Oldest Constitutional Question.’ So what is the oldest constitutional question?

This is the issue of federalism. The basic impetus for the writing of the Constitution was the need for a more powerful national government than had previously existed. But how much more powerful and how would it work? We’ve been fighting about the answer to that question ever since.

Central to the way that constitutional lawyers think about this question is the idea that the federal government is a government of enumerated powers. That means that the Constitution affirmatively lists the things that the federal government is authorized to do and the federal government can do those things and no others. This is the opposite default rule from the one for state governments, which can do anything that isn’t affirmatively prohibited.

It is a core proposition of American constitutional law that Congress can legislate only on the basis of its enumerated powers and that that limits Congress in important ways. Also, that federalism—in the way that it’s supposed to work in our system—depends on that limitation.

My book is an explanation of why I think that all of that is wrong.

2. How did you come to question this long-standing orthodoxy?

I started to think it was wrong as I taught the material year after year in the introductory constitutional law course here at Michigan. I would spend several weeks each year teaching about federalism and enumerated powers more or less in the way that I had learned them. 

I would explain the significance of the fact that the Constitution enumerates Congressional powers, mostly in Article 1, Section 8, and that the reason there’s a list is to make the point that only what’s on the list is provided. If Congress were supposed to have legislative power in general, you wouldn’t need a long, detailed list.

And I would explain that the 10th Amendment, which is understood to state the rule, says the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the states. 

But as I taught the material each year, I came to realize that there were a lot of things that didn’t make sense in what I was saying. For example, everyone learns that Congress is limited by its enumerated powers. But you also learn by the end of your first semester in Constitutional Law that, in practice, the enumerated powers haven’t done much work to limit what Congress can actually do in a very long time.

I learned about enumerated powers as a law student, and I believed the conventional view to be correct when I started my career as a law teacher. It took me some number of years of immersion in the material to begin changing my mind.

3. Can you provide an example of how enumerated powers haven’t limited Congress? 

As I was in some of the stages of thinking about these issues, the Supreme Court in 2012 decided NFIB [National Federation of Independent Business] v. Sebelius, the first big constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act. 

It was all about enumerated powers—the leading argument against the Affordable Care Act was, if Congress can compel people to buy health insurance, is there anything left that the enumerated powers don’t reach? What couldn’t Congress legislate, other than the things that the Constitution affirmatively prohibits, like the establishment of a religion? And 
many people thought that if there wasn’t a clear answer to that question, it had to mean the law was unconstitutional.

That means that, on that theory, the Supreme Court came within one vote of striking down the most ambitious federal social legislation in 50 years. And it’s a bad theory. It doesn’t actually explain how federalism works. 

4. Now that you’ve formulated this argument and written this book, what is the next step? 

The perspective that I am recommending is radically at odds with the conventional perspective. So one thing that I have to do with it as a teacher is make sure that my students understand the conventional perspective, even though I think it’s wrong. That’s because if you go into a federal court and argue a case in a way that follows from what I am saying about how the Constitution actually works, you will lose your case. 

Sometimes competent legal practice requires you to say things that make no sense. But they’re the things that the law has decided are the things that you say. That’s in the short term.

In the longer term, if I can persuade people to think about the Constitution in a better way, maybe we can change what the law thinks is a sensible argument. 

That is, I think that we should understand the enumerated powers of Congress as primarily intended not to limit Congress, but to empower it.

5. You mentioned that this will require a change in perspective. Why will that need to change?

There are at least two general reasons. 

One is that there’s a long tradition in American constitutional law and political culture of being skeptical of federal governance. That attitude draws strength from the idea that it is a faithful channeling of the attitudes of the framers of the Constitution, who were skeptical of central governance. 

But I think they weren’t. They wanted a stronger federal government. That was the whole point. And this mechanism of enumerating the federal government’s powers was a way of making sure the federal government would be strong enough, not a mechanism of limiting it by negative implication.

And if we remember it that way, we can have a more positive view of what we, the American people, can accomplish at the level of national government. 

We’ve actually accomplished a lot of really important things at the level of national government. We became a superpower and the arsenal of democracy; we established Medicare, 
Medicaid, NASA, the Centers for Disease Control, and many other things that individual states could not accomplish. 

The second important change in perspective is about the difference between federalism and the separation of federal powers. 

Constitutional lawyers think of the enumeration of Congressional powers as an aspect of federalism. But it’s substantially about the separation of powers, too.

The powers of Congress were enumerated in substantial part to make clear that it was Congress, not the president, who is supposed to be doing these things. 

At a time when Congress has ceded a lot of power to the executive branch, I think that’s an important thing to reposition.

The social and legal history of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (known today known as “DEI”) emerged from the early civil rights movements leading to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the late 1970s/early 1980s, America embraced the moral imperative of “affirmative action” recognizing the practice as a vital tool to eradicate historical inequities.

By A. Vince Colella

The social and legal history of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (known today known as “DEI”) emerged from the early civil rights movements leading to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the late 1970s/early 1980s, America embraced the moral imperative of “affirmative action” recognizing the practice as a vital tool to eradicate historical inequities. The term “diversity” became popular in Corporate America in 1987, after an article was published by the Hudson Institute (a New York City “liberal think tank”) predicting a commercial advantage of demographic workforce changes. By the 2000s, the term DEI became synonymous with a workplace that was not only tolerant of a diverse class of workers but also embraced it!

Recent political developments

President Trump’s January 2025 Executive Orders, while not federal law, have started the domino effect of tumbling DEI initiatives in the federal workforce. By his own account, the impetus behind the president’s orders is to “restore values of individual dignity, hard work, and excellence.” Many feel that this may be a dog whistle to corporations that it is now fair game to reinstate institutional barriers to “equal” employment. While federal employees are encouraged to report their colleagues who continue to further DEI efforts, legal challenges are anticipated.

But Michigan is not budging. In response to the president’s orders, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has issued Executive Directive 2025-1 reaffirming our state’s commitment to diversity while ensuring federal compliance. The governor’s directive makes clear that while Michigan remains committed to following federal actions, it will rail against initiatives that violate constitutional law.  

Meanwhile, the private sector remains divided, with some companies restricting DEI policies while others continue to adopt them.

The ‘not so’ quiet dismantling of civil rights protections

In 2023, the Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard signaled a major shift in affirmative action ideology, potentially opening floodgates to erosion of civil rights protections in employment, housing, and other areas. In this decision, Justice Clarence Thomas paradoxically argued that “affirmative action imposes a stigma on minorities” suggesting that minorities are already protected under the constitutional principle that “all men are created equal.” A suggestion that has not historically been the case.  

This year, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a reverse discrimination case where a heterosexual employee alleged she was passed over for promotion in favor of a gay woman. The case tests the “background circumstances” requirement used by the Sixth Circuit, which requires plaintiffs to show either an employer’s inclination to discriminate against the majority or something “fishy” about the hiring decision.

While Ames doesn’t directly challenge DEI programs, the case carries significant implications for such initiatives. If the Supreme Court sides with Ames and eliminates the “background circumstances” requirement, it could lower the evidentiary threshold for reverse discrimination claims. The potential consequence? Companies might face more lawsuits challenging DEI policies, potentially creating a chilling effect on diversity initiatives as organizations weigh increased legal risks against their inclusion goals.

What can be gleaned from these two cases is that the U.S. Supreme Court has shown a recent trend of protecting the majority interests at the expense of minority rights.

DEI impact on discrimination lawsuits

Research on DEI initiatives’ impact on discrimination lawsuits shows mixed results. While some studies indicate companies with robust DEI policies face fewer lawsuits, others suggest these programs increase discrimination reporting by raising awareness. EEOC data reveals workplace discrimination charges have fluctuated despite widespread DEI adoption, with retaliation claims becoming more prevalent and discrimination categories expanding to include age, disability, and sexual orientation.

However, DEI policies alone cannot prevent lawsuits. It will require comprehensive programs featuring clear reporting mechanisms to resolve issues internally before legal escalation. 

The effectiveness of these initiatives in preventing litigation depends critically on senior leadership commitment, integration with core business processes, regular monitoring, quality implementation, and accessible grievance procedures.

The bottom line for employers

Should the Supreme Court rule in favor of Ames, how should companies respond? Those that value diversity in the workplace and recognize its benefits should thoughtfully consider designed policies to maintain their legal protection. Management that places a priority on employment decisions (hiring, firing, promoting, or demoting) based on legitimate business factors rather than protected characteristics will continue to have strong legal standing. Executives that consistently apply neutral policies (and maintain detailed records of its decision-making process) will remain well-positioned to defend against any discrimination claims, regardless of the Ames outcome.  

Practically speaking, employers would be wise to consider implementing an objective evaluation criterion for employment decisions, document performance-based reasons for management decisions, and educate corporate leadership about the sources of bias to provide insight into their own subconscious proclivities. Today, nearly 2/3 of all mid-size companies employ DEI initiatives with higher percentages in Fortune 500 businesses.  

Implementing sound business management practices will serve as a crucial safeguard against liability arising from discriminatory conduct.
________

A. Vince Colella is a founding partner of Southfield-based personal injury and civil rights law firm Moss & Colella.

By Judge Timothy P. Connors (Ret.)

RIGHTS
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are all endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ...”

These words have resonated in our American discourse for 247 years. Through the conscious employment of capitalization, certain guideposts were established. These unalienable rights (not transferable to another; not capable of being taken away or denied) are supported by a permanent fund. The endowment is not from a preemptive creator (the); but from one of choice (their). Those 37 words in our Declaration of Independence lay the foundation for a justice system based on the recognition of rights that are equal, accessible, permanent, and resilient. But then the reality sets in.

As the history of our legal system has documented, the application of these rights has not been equal, accessible, or permanent. They may however be resilient. If we acknowledge other truths in the history of our justice system, it is possible that these unalienable rights may spring back, rebound, or return to their original form or position after being bent, compressed, or stretched. The choice is ours.

Our Declaration further asserts that when a man-made government “becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form.” Ironic, of course, that when it comes to the actual work of altering or abolishing, gender qualification is not necessary. Beyond irony is that one of the “facts ...

submitted to a candid world” claims “absolute tyranny” over the colonists by the colonist, and, in support of that grievance, the colonist has protected “the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction, of all ages, sexes and conditions.” The root of the unalienable right to “the pursuit of happiness” is land acquisition and the potential to maximize the economic profit from it. That right was for some, not all. The history of our justice system documents the long-standing protection of that root. But that is a deeper, longer, and more thoughtful discussion.

One-hundred-forty years later, a different population asserted their rights against a government founded on colonialism. The proclamation of the Irish Republic in 1916 declared “the rights of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible. The long usurpation of that right by a foreign people and government has not extinguished the right, nor can it ever be extinguished except by the destruction of the Irish people ... the Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights, and equal opportunities of all its citizens ... oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past.” The shift in focus and emphasis on equality is significant, as is the declaration of the right of sovereignty.

RELATIONSHIPS
The United States has relationships with sovereign nations both outside of our borders as well as within our borders. There are 574 federally recognized Indian tribes in the United States, each having some degree of sovereignty, depending on their relationship with the federal, state, or local government. Some of those relationships are healthier than others. The best are based on mutual respect and cultural appreciation of Indigenous sovereign nations, as opposed to cultural appropriation by those governments or its citizens.

Over 30 years ago in Michigan, then Supreme Court Chief Justice Michael Cavanagh began a relationship with our Tribal Courts. His initial words were prophetic to our neighbors: “We know we have more to learn from you than you do from us.” And so, it began. We have only scratched the surface of what we can learn. We can learn because there is a need, perhaps a necessity, that we open spaces and places for incorporating other world views and create procedures that nurture values that address areas of conflict in our communities.

RESPONSIBILITIES
Many of our Tribal Courts have implemented their traditional justice systems of Peacemaking. While Peacemaking has common ground with restorative justice, it is deeper, broader, ancient, and profound. Based on values of relationships, responsibilities, respect, and resiliency, it has greater potential for healthy resolutions than a system based on power and control, proscription, punishment, and property as the major goal.

CONCLUSION
In the end, what do any of us really need? We need to love and to be loved. We need to give and to be given to. We need to laugh and cry and laugh again. We need to see each other as human beings, desperately needing each other as we hurtle through time and space in this ship called Mother Earth. We need to see and feel the goodness and decency that exist within us and around us on this earth. We need to live in the nourishing light of dignity, see it, and acknowledge it. We need peace.
—————
The Honorable Timothy P. Connors retired on Dec. 31; he remains active as a mediator/facilitator. He was a Michigan state court judge for 34 years and founded the Washtenaw County Peacemaking Court.