Michigan Supreme Court staff told the House Appropriations Subcommittee that a long-running effort to put courts on a statewide unified case-management system (JIS) has advanced, that most caseloads already flow through JIS, and that the Legislature provided a one-time migration appropriation the court is still obligating.

State Court Administrator Tom Boyd said the Legislature previously appropriated $150,000,000 in one-time funds to migrate courts onto the statewide JIS platform. "We have obligated 85,000,000 of that and have 65,000,000 not yet obligated," Boyd said. He added that roughly 200 of about 250 court units are already on JIS and that the system handles "something like 80% of the caseload already."

Why this matters

A unified case-management system promises standardized data, more accurate statewide reporting and, per court testimony, better integration with executive-branch data sources. Committee members asked how many courts remain to be migrated, the costs to operate a larger, centralized system, and whether more recurring state funding would be needed.

Key details

Boyd said the original judicial request accompanying the migration funding included $150,000,000 one-time money for migration and an additional $38,000,000 in recurring appropriations to operate the larger system. As migration proceeds, the judiciary has requested an additional $7,200,000 in recurring funding this year as a further slice of that ongoing operational need.

Oakland County is the next major migration priority, Boyd said, because its homegrown case-management system is aging and county IT staff advised the judiciary it might become unsupported. "One of the things Chief Justice Kavanaugh did was send a letter to the chief judge, the county clerk, the county executive, and the chair of the county board saying, we are not changing a thing — full speed ahead," Boyd said. Oakland’s migration is viewed as a test of JIS scalability for larger courts.

Discussion versus decision

Committee questions focused on status updates and funding needs; there were no votes to add or remove migration funding at the hearing. Boyd said detailed, court-by-court status and financial accounting would be provided in writing to the committee.

Background and next steps

The judiciary retained the National Center for State Courts to evaluate whether JIS remains the logical platform; that independent review supported continuing with JIS rather than replacing it. Boyd said continued migration and the operation of a larger statewide system will require both the remaining one-time funds and recurring appropriations for staffing, security, and customer service.

Ending

Court officials said they will deliver a detailed report on which courts remain to be migrated, how much of the one-time migration appropriation has been spent or committed, and anticipated recurring costs.