Private: Who is Maura Corrigan?

by Liz Aloi, Editor-at-Large
One jurist who has recently been garnering attention in the news as a potential Supreme Court nominee is Michigan Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan.

Corrigan graduated from Marygrove College in 1969 and from the University of Detroit Law School in 1973. After graduation, she clerked for Michigan Court of Appeals Judge John Gillis and worked as a Wayne County Assistant Prosecutor. In 1979, she became an Assistant United States Attorney, serving as Chief of Appeals and later Chief Assistant United States Attorney. She then entered private practice as in 1989, as a partner at Plunkett & Cooney, Detroit law firm.
Justice Corrigan began her career as a judge in 1992 when Governor John Engler appointed her to the Michigan Court of Appeals. She was twice elected to that court and was appointed as its Chief Judge from 1997-1998 until her election to the Supreme Court.
Since her tenure as a judge began, Corrigan, has strongly emphasized a commitment to following legislative intent through "textual analysis," the philosophy of judicial restraint championed by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. In fact, she has declared that statutory interpretation in Michigan adheres to the principles consistently articulated by Justice Scalia. In a 2003 article, co-authored with one of her clerks, Corrigan criticized judges who dont subscribe to a textualist judicial philosophy. She wrote:

When the judicial branch does not honor the separation of powers but instead usurps the powers of another branch, the stability of our system of government is undermined... many problems arise when courts legislate under the guise of a preferential rule by, e.g., construing so-called "remedial" statutes "liberally" rather than reasonably. Judges have a solemn obligation to interpret laws in accordance with their plain meanings, and not to load the dice for a favored result.

Under her tenure as Chief Justice:
In Maier v. Gen. Tel. Co. of Mich., 645 N.W.2d 654 (Mich. 2002), the Michigan Supreme Court has rejected the "absurd result" doctrine. Under this doctrine, judges will look past the plain language of a statute whenever they deem the result required by the statute to be absurd or unjust.
In (Stanton v. City of Battle Creek, 647 N.W.2d 508 (Mich. 2002) and Nawrocki v. Macomb County Rd. Comm'n, 615 N.W.2d 702, 711 (Mich. 2000)), the Michigan Supreme Court has declared that governmental immunity statutes should be broadly construed while the exceptions to it are construed narrowly is not a true dice-loading rule.
In People v. Jagotka, 461 Mich. 274 (Mich. 1999) the court held it was not a state or federal constitutional violation when the state destroys a blood sample used to convict a defendant before the case was resolved.
In Franciosi v. Michigan Parole Bd., 461 Mich. 347 (Mich. 2000), Justice Corrigan dissented from an opinion of the court which held that a lawyer was not prevented from attending and participating in a parole interview in the same way as nonlawyers, but a lawyer could not act as a legal representative of a prisoner during a parole interview. Corrigan argued that the person representing a prisoner at a parole interview should be an attorney acting in any capacity, legal or non-legal.When not at work, Justice Corrigan participates in a number of professional activities. She is President of the American Inns of Court at MSU Law School and holds memberships on the Boards of the International Center for Healing and the Law of the Fetzer Institute, Vista Maria, and the Pew Commission investigating foster care issues in the U.S. Corrigan is a long time member of the Federalist Society, Michigan Lawyers Chapter, and was president of the Incorporated Society of Irish American Lawyers and the Federal Bar Association, Detroit Chapter.