[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6553359,"mediaKeyId","5070688-e0f3889213cd942bd022335365e4eeb2","parentId",5070688,"title","Tribal leaders and legal scholars urge Michigan to codify protections for tribal general welfare benefits and explain tribal courts","audioSeconds",399,"startMs",2447000,"endMs",2846000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5070688-e0f3889213cd942bd022335365e4eeb2&start=2447&end=2846","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5070688-e0f3889213cd942bd022335365e4eeb2/thumbnail_2447000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6553359/Michigan/Tribal-leaders-and-legal-scholars-urge-Michigan-to-codify-protections-for-tribal-general-welfare-benefits-and-explain-tribal-courts","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6553359-f8ff92532d7b4b0ede0df3f3a2f6045a/orig.mp4?Expires=1773651499&Signature=hcghV3AhBZwpvgKsXeBWQjkv5VseMT6BuSo3-scENfZi-lmB46~J13Vv1SxIT2WGZtM1DBGvxkmiHhnXdfhFbRdPTa8BC6MgM5eOqlNooGDgp3NRUtp5jQM4ID8~NuI3kl1Uh8LloGRZ9zRmuiAU7mtmfuHFne3RAPdC41MnQmvhZFO5EfrcbaN8QGLZeHT01NBTrDSF4I3Ep3yrjoT2wXFDTk-U1f~ZK~SGSwoAHe61gDj2uln1mwt4Fj57XEckIGAs-iipoaJ53Uo5NugZ-tbCt62hddVgCVYs3KdUZxSi07~W3N6hQIXQDnEKqoQgexzZ1cjoiJcPtlyDjA5tkw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Michigan Legislature","date","2025-06-26T03:41:52Z","article","Representatives of Michigan tribes and a Michigan State University law professor told the House Judiciary Committee on Feb. 20 that state statute should clarify how tribal general welfare benefits are treated and described the role and jurisdiction of tribal courts in Michigan.

Dori Rios, chairwoman of the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, urged the committee to consider legislation that would prevent state agencies from treating tribal general welfare benefits — programs such as housing assistance, elder care, education stipends and funeral assistance — as income that jeopardizes eligibility for state‑administered programs. Rios cited 26 U.S. Code § 139E as federal recognition that tribal general welfare programs are grounded in government authority and are excluded from federal taxable income; she said the Internal Revenue Service has noted that consistent state‑level treatment requires intergovernmental coordination or legislation.

“We fully support codification of protections for the benefits we provide our citizens, who are also Michigan citizens, with the respect, clarity, and legal consistency they deserve,” Rios said, urging legislative collaboration among Chair Leitner’s office, the governor’s office, the Department of Health and Human Services and tribal governments.

Winona Single, associate professor at Michigan State University College of Law and director of the Indigenous Law and Policy Center, provided an overview of tribal courts in Michigan, explaining that all 12 federally recognized Michigan tribes have tribal court systems, generally including trial and appellate levels, and that tribal courts apply tribal constitutions, tribal statutes, customary law and applicable federal law. Single described the limits on tribal criminal jurisdiction over non‑Indians historically created by Oliphant v. Suquamish and the statutory expansions Congress enacted, including the Tribal Law and Order Act and subsequent reauthorizations of the Violence Against Women Act that permit special tribal criminal jurisdiction for certain crimes when statutory conditions are met.

Single noted that four Michigan tribes as of 2023 have implemented the conditions necessary to exercise expanded criminal jurisdiction over non‑Indians and described restorative justice approaches such as Healing to Wellness courts that many tribal courts operate. She highlighted existing cooperative mechanisms between tribal and state courts, including the Michigan tribal‑state‑federal judicial forum and Michigan Court Rule 2.615, which facilitates recognition and enforcement of tribal court judgments by state courts.

Both presenters emphasized intergovernmental collaboration. Rios referenced a resolution by the United Tribes of Michigan adopted on 02/20/2025 supporting statutory protections; Single said tribal courts are modern institutions that resolve civil and criminal matters, administer juvenile justice and operate specialty courts including healing and wellness courts.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Judiciary - 6/25/2025","oneSentenceSummary","Leaders from the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi and Michigan State University law faculty told the House Judiciary Committee that Michigan should codify protections for tribal general welfare benefits and recognize the role of tribal courts.","taxTitle","2025-2026 House Legislature MI, Michigan","taxId",77683,"location","Michigan","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6553369,"Experts urge Michigan to require safety protocols, third‑party audits for largest AI developers",1385,753000,2138000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5070688-e0f3889213cd942bd022335365e4eeb2&start=753&end=2138","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5070688-e0f3889213cd942bd022335365e4eeb2/thumbnail_753000.jpg","/articles/6553369/Michigan/Experts-urge-Michigan-to-require-safety-protocols-thirdparty-audits-for-largest-AI-developers","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6553369-f233d2ee94b5b1612ac1384c60ad54fd/orig.mp4?Expires=1773651499&Signature=A74mNgZ84zKPYNdb6JikBnDfB3QwSVmJhcRtkBKgV0je2mV86qKNiyYSejIKwZE060pDjRujDz4Uy3Ige4NoGvK8Z8AjdivAi8TfvL-38lAwFirnLnpjGQe-9~EZyUz1Q1OhTEsoSoEHF3TExuZBL-6k-wsUaAaDK3LBFzlY2QhiLV4zjd0XhiQ4fC9Mc4Y4KKoBOVV2HhpRdcD4BCQ4IEdN0XPsUChRIA9u-VM6QknHmcO6XBsYGnmWqbhR9kO0VLcgeDQiUGCuG2keMngfpqueym3nkIa2GAziorgCB5csVatVimqnVopjeCG4HXFv1uAZLvuIuFa5cCg09wYWWA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Presenters for House Bill 4668 told the Michigan House Judiciary Committee on Feb. 20 that the bill would require the state’s largest AI developers to publish safety and security protocols, allow independent audits, and submit quarterly implementation reports.

Andrew Dorris of the Secure AI Project, a nonprofit, said the measure targets “very large companies that spend more than a $100,000,000 a year developing these foundational models.” He told the committee the bill would require four main actions: publish and follow safety and security protocols for preventing “critical harms” (defined in testimony as harms causing more than 100 casualties or more than $1,000,000,000 in economic damage); provide quarterly reports of tests and outcomes; submit to independent third‑party audits to confirm compliance with published protocols; and provide whistleblower protections for employees who report unmitigated critical risks.

Daniel Croft, senior researcher at the Center for AI Risk Management and Alignment and a nonresident fellow at the Berkeley Risk and Security Lab, summarized the threat landscape the bill intends to address and urged Michigan to act, noting the state’s manufacturing and agricultural sectors could be affected by advanced AI misuse. Croft said advanced models already demonstrate unexpected and hazardous capabilities — including autonomous exploitation of cyber vulnerabilities in testing environments — and said the bill’s developer‑focused design is intended to be adaptable as the technology evolves.

Committee members asked about flexibility, enforcement, cost and who would pay for audits. Dorris said the bill is deliberately “light touch” on specifying particular tests and avoids defining “frontier” models by technical metrics; instead it targets organizations that meet specified developer‑spending thresholds. On enforcement, Dorris said the attorney general could seek civil fines of up to $1,000,000 for violations and that companies would hire and pay the third‑party auditors; if violations were found, the company would be liable for fines.

Committee members raised questions about whether the bill would impede small businesses; presenters said the thresholds exclude small and mid‑sized companies. Presenters also compared the proposal to other state efforts, saying it has a narrower developer‑focused scope than some bills that would create new regulatory bodies or impose mandatory incident reporting.

No committee vote on HB 4668 occurred at the hearing; the item was presented for consideration and followed by questions from committee members.","Researchers and nonprofit experts told the House Judiciary Committee that House Bill 4668 would require very large AI developers to publish safety and security protocols, undergo independent audits and report quarterly on testing aimed at preventing high‑consequence harms.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6553374,"Committee rejects two amendments but reports three juvenile sentencing bills to floor",237,451000,688000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5070688-e0f3889213cd942bd022335365e4eeb2&start=451&end=688","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5070688-e0f3889213cd942bd022335365e4eeb2/thumbnail_451000.jpg","/articles/6553374/Michigan/Committee-rejects-two-amendments-but-reports-three-juvenile-sentencing-bills-to-floor","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6553374-6b1c9caa5c779dfae4135fcabbe3c519/orig.mp4?Expires=1773651499&Signature=Iz~REdSjfmz60H6pBdy5XjqtlIN9h~TAgiF0p1pkYCq1Ssi5o1nNROmT-4yVDgRmQTJtu~qFhycbNTSUG5eu0R5j-e7oSxqoXBai2fuKZmmNuYBf82JRC-q505aSoC6UbnKkX8XNv7Lma3F6P1G2rEkisFZQ~SMuG9rM8Nw--0yR6V5uU90FQvChQMczGiolDJnFWQ9M6uKe7KHbfVskoRtR80ikTm8aG0T2kygdT6Ck6~ZuhK6VFa7JB3ig55C7sJdQmCzsW7~Wj7UevE3GY9rdja5je64aibV4QyTzetuV0my8CMfmoH23NYZelgan-1ieL4NuyAX4hiDPOde7Gw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Michigan House Judiciary Committee on Feb. 20 debated a package of bills related to sentencing for young adults and reported House Bills 4506, 4507 and 4508 to the House floor with committee recommendations.

Representative Hope offered two amendments to HB 4506 that would have narrowed consecutive-sentencing provisions and adjusted minimum and maximum terms to match sentencing ranges already in place for 17- and 18‑year‑olds. On both amendments, the committee voted them down. The roll call on the first amendment showed 4 ayes and 7 nays; the second amendment likewise failed on a 4–7 vote.

When the committee moved HB 4506 with recommendation to the floor, the roll call recorded seven yes votes and four no votes; the clerk announced the bill was reported with recommendation. Representative Hope said she had moved the amendments “to limit the application of the consecutive sentencing … to just those juveniles or 19 and 20 year olds who have committed more than 1 first degree murder,” and later said the second amendment “puts the minimum and maximum sentences available in line with that, which is currently in place for 17 and 18 year olds.”

Committee cards read into the record showed opposition from Nicole Porter of The Sentencing Project and Paula Bowman of the League of Women Voters; both listed that they oppose HB 4506, HB 4507 and HB 4508 and did not wish to speak.

Representative Bagol moved HB 4507 with recommendation; a committee roll call again showed seven yes and four no votes and the bill was reported to the floor with recommendation. Representative Harris moved HB 4508 with recommendation; the committee roll call also recorded seven yes and four no votes and the bill was reported with recommendation.

The committee record shows votes by name during roll calls, and the clerk announced vote totals after each roll. No final floor actions were taken by the committee beyond reporting these bills with recommendation.","The House Judiciary Committee debated three related juvenile sentencing bills (HB 4506, HB 4507, HB 4508). Two amendments offered by Representative Hope to HB 4506 failed; each of the three bills was reported to the House floor with the committee’s recommendation after roll calls.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6553379,"House Judiciary Committee adopts substitute for bill to limit 40-year easement expirations",107,287000,394000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5070688-e0f3889213cd942bd022335365e4eeb2&start=287&end=394","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5070688-e0f3889213cd942bd022335365e4eeb2/thumbnail_287000.jpg","/articles/6553379/Michigan/House-Judiciary-Committee-adopts-substitute-for-bill-to-limit-40-year-easement-expirations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6553379-ccd802788189fc63d048329b0b3f5632/orig.mp4?Expires=1773651499&Signature=QyUoQMrQ7LM7wlVAKNAFXj6HvgzhEFyuME3-59LpDokxXmIWsO50nxbGMmYTOtNqdhCmj2bmtH-tJQCEvX7D1wKQwQWEruy7vcDwSS8HKNe6KvfNXb~Un9g8ijtamcW1togv-E-R-rLBw97Bm980Wt3-f~whIxYvRunJqWt7caPRQiOYzH4mO30bdjsPQfJZswtd3euv6bq9IPKRahrSMSFrAaGXaneYhx3Hw4fU-Aze1khAjBlyclYLR6ajWu6d5t8lr4NBTy-GaEOLfaJ3eRE-2cXY5w0wVkqSLqhBrD8pv91wUSxXgAZIJB~e7pSqGB2irsGVE3UW2o82d7x22w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Michigan House Judiciary Committee on Feb. 20 adopted a substitute for House Bill 4524 and voted to report the bill to the floor with a committee recommendation.

Representative Wozniak, sponsor of the substitute, told the committee the H-1 amendment “clarifies that there’s certain amenities that are excluded from the change, particularly under drain codes or governmental or quasi government bodies like drainage districts and energy utility facilities.” She said the change addresses situations in which an easement or other recorded interest older than 40 years surprised developers and land purchasers.

The committee roll call on the substitute showed 10 yeas and 0 nays; the clerk later reported the committee had 10 ayes and 0 nays when it certified the bill as reported. Committee members David Pearson of the Real Property Law Section, Sean Cecil of Michigan Realtors, and Dawn Crandall of the Home Builders Association were listed on committee cards as supporting the bill but did not speak at the hearing.

The substitute and the committee’s action would alter how recorded easements or other recorded interests are treated when they exceed 40 years; according to the sponsor’s explanation, the amendment leaves in place explicit exclusions for governmental or quasi‑governmental interests such as drainage districts and energy utility facilities. The committee did not vote on final passage to the full House; the action reported the bill to the floor with the committee’s recommendation.

Members of the public and interest groups were included on committee cards supporting the bill; no testimonies opposing the measure were read into the record during the section of the hearing that dealt with HB 4524. The committee moved immediately to other agenda items after reporting the bill.","The Michigan House Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to adopt a substitute to House Bill 4524, clarifying which recorded property interests are excluded from an automatic 40-year expiration and sending the bill to the floor with committee recommendation.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6553364,"Prosecutors’ testimony delayed; committee hears summary of proposed AI criminal offense",165,2165000,2330000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5070688-e0f3889213cd942bd022335365e4eeb2&start=2165&end=2330","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5070688-e0f3889213cd942bd022335365e4eeb2/thumbnail_2165000.jpg","/articles/6553364/Michigan/Prosecutors-testimony-delayed-committee-hears-summary-of-proposed-AI-criminal-offense","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6553364-fa63a3f028acb627d546ed34948ce201/orig.mp4?Expires=1773651499&Signature=nbyknXrqogseekQu9QxAoXcT8MtwpBB46cDSbDYFhGL7xjzW6IHO~x4gfJ5eiHp~C9NWTHXrhZKeG3kCePxs7~Fqv36faACkauQInv9sK3r4h70WsussrJ3u-x6wEnUICbVJWW8JltxOr3868P-vBWdWObLxhX~HKF5qJAHEh1sNw6SGwBHCcdcGiPBdcjCKnrNWxZzuoW9XZ834I7QXMiUyyQz0Knda-AXuShN9-uZPQ-IvwqJ74nKlnTkghLxTs120G-nPXD0PRdOu7XHtwVIsOd7v2CIAW9A2LaZa9FKXwj~7nrLuQa1LM-JER7cWnlw3aGMkRqQY69-GJ7m7tA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The committee moved to consider House Bill 4667, a criminal AI bill, but the prosecutor who had been scheduled to testify was unable to connect and did not present. Committee members nevertheless heard an explanation of the bill’s contents from the sponsor.

Committee materials and the sponsor’s remarks described HB 4667 as creating a separate felony for possessing, developing, deploying, or modifying an AI system with intent to commit a crime, punishable by up to eight years; a separate felony for using an AI system during the commission or attempted commission of a crime, also punishable by up to eight years; and a felony of up to four years for knowingly designing, cataloging, or distributing AI tools for others to use in crimes. The sponsor said the bill would bar probation, parole and suspension of sentence during the mandatory term and would require restitution to victims under MCL 769.1a.

Chair and committee members indicated the prosecutor could not be reached by Zoom and the committee proceeded to other business. Committee members asked a follow‑up question in the hearing about penalty amounts and whether the eight‑year term was intended as a starting point.

No witness presentation or committee vote on HB 4667 is recorded in the committee minutes for this session.","A prosecutor scheduled to testify on House Bill 4667, which would create felony offenses for designing, possessing or using AI to commit crimes, experienced technical difficulties and did not present. Committee staff summarized the bill’s provisions and sponsors described penalty ranges.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Tribal leaders and legal scholars urge Michigan to codify protections for tribal general welfare benefits and explain tribal courts

Experts urge Michigan to require safety protocols, third‑party audits for largest AI developers

Committee rejects two amendments but reports three juvenile sentencing bills to floor

House Judiciary Committee adopts substitute for bill to limit 40-year easement expirations

Prosecutors’ testimony delayed; committee hears summary of proposed AI criminal offense