A Conversation with Michigan Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Welch  

In November, the Brennan Center for Justice, State Court Report, and the Northwestern Law Review hosted a symposium dedicated to state constitutional law. Several state supreme court justices who participated in the program sat down for brief interviews with State Court Report, which we are publishing as a series.

Justice Elizabeth Welch was elected to the Michigan Supreme Court in 2020 and took the bench in January 2021. Prior to joining the court, her legal work included practicing at large law firms and extensive pro bono representation of individuals and nonprofit entities. She also served as vice president and trustee of the East Grand Rapids Public School Board of Education and currently serves as a board member and vice president of the Steelcase Foundation, an organization that works to improve access to quality public education and cultivate communities that support children and their families.

In her interview, Welch spoke about the changes artificial intelligence is bringing to practicing law, the similarities between funding schools and funding courts, and why law students should be prepared for career pivots.

The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

When you were in law school, what did you expect your legal career to look like? 

I went to law school with a definite interest in public service. I had grown up thinking maybe I would get into politics, but, as so often happens, life detours. I had opportunities with larger law firms and I thought my career would be in the world of labor and employment law — it’s what I did for 25 years. I did not think I was going to be a judge. But I was fortunate that my career allowed me to do a lot of extracurricular activities, which so many attorneys are prone to do. We’re a very civically engaged bunch! I loved it, and that extra work on the outside ended up pulling me back to public service.

I am grateful for my time in larger law firms. They launched me and ensured I developed robust litigation skills.

What advice do you wish someone had given you when you were a law student? 

It’s okay to not know exactly what you want to do. Right away, people will start asking, “What kind of lawyer do you want be?” You might think you know, or maybe you have no idea, or maybe it changes while you’re in school. I really wish someone had said, “That’s okay!” The pressure to know the answer to that is very high. The reality is you will figure it out, and the first thing you pick might not be where you’re going to land. In fact, the odds are, probably not.

The beautiful part of this profession is: You can pivot! You can decide you’re really interested in this other area of the law, and there is nothing stopping you from figuring out how to make it work. You could decide there’s a niche that needs to be filled and start figuring out how to fill it. I’ve watched countless friends do that, and it was scary at first — they had to find a mentor outside their usual world, but they did find one because people in this profession are incredibly generous with their time and helping each other.

It’s possible you may not even end up practicing law. So many of my friends who started out practicing law are now in their career primes but no longer practicing. They are running nonprofit organizations, working for elected leaders, working as strategists. Be flexible; you’re going to be presented with detours and some of them might be amazing detours. But also know you will have some disappointments, and that you might someday be amazed looking back that some of those disappointments led you in a direction that resulted in tremendous success.

What challenges do students face today that are different from your experience? 

Generative AI is a big one. Lawyers are notorious late adapters, so I’m really proud there’s a lot of people working hard to figure it out. It’s still not clear yet what practicing law is going to look like, but I think we can safely say that a lot of work typically performed by new attorneys will be performed by AI. It will be interesting to see how that pans out. I suspect it will mean firms can take more clients, because some of the work will be faster. But we also still need to train new lawyers, and it’s hard to know what that will look like.

For law students, they are entering the profession at this incredibly pivotal moment. I was in law school when Westlaw and natural language was a very big deal for legal research legal research. This is an exponentially bigger deal. It’s a tool, so there’s a huge opportunity. And I think people who are embracing it and figuring out how to use it productively and ethically will do well.

What do you enjoy about being a state court judge?

I absolutely love my job. I particularly love that I regularly interact with the public. Campaigns are super hard, but I think that interaction is incredibly important and makes us better at our jobs. We are connected with what’s happening on the front lines.

I also love the administrative work we get to do. State courts have a state court administrative office, and the supreme court sits over that office. We get to focus on systems and how we can serve the public better. I am super proud to be part of a court that has spent the last eight years hyper-focused on that. We have commissions, task forces, and various groups focused on access to justice and fairness. They’ve done some incredible, tangible work. For example, our courts have really worked hard to ensure self-represented litigants can navigate our courthouses through in-person assistance, courthouse kiosks, or online self-help tools. We’re constantly thinking of new ways to help people navigate courthouses.

What is something people might not know about your state constitution? 

It has been amended 39 times since 1963 — and there has been a huge uptick in amendments in the last 20 years. The direct democracy process has become more common in Michigan.

Michigan’s constitution also protects the state’s natural resources, with specific language telling the legislature to protect the land, air, and water.

Probably one of the more interesting tidbits is an amendment that protects the right to do stem cell research.

What are the most memorable opinions that you’ve been able to participate in?

People v. Parks came out in 2022; I authored that one. We extended the [U.S. Supreme Court’s] Miller factors, which are used for cases involving juvenile life-without-parole proceedings. We extended those factors beyond minors, to 18-year-olds. That framework has subsequently been extended to 19– and 20-year-olds in Michigan, too. Parks examined the Michigan Constitution’s cruel or unusual punishment provision, and the [U.S. Supreme Court’s] Miller and Montgomery cases. The opinion also referenced brain science and our evolving understanding of the young adult brain.

The second case is Mothering Justice v. Attorney General, which was decided in 2024. That case involved direct democracy initiatives to mandate paid sick leave and increase the minimum wage. Both involved citizen-led efforts that successfully obtained enough signatures under Michigan’s constitution to place the initiatives on the November ballot. But before the election, the legislature adopted the laws, meaning the initiatives then did not go on the ballot.

Under Michigan’s constitution, that is one of the pathways available to the legislature for such provisions. A second pathway is that the legislature can modify the provision and put it on the ballot next to the original proposal. And a third pathway is that lawmakers can reject the proposed initiative, resulting in the language going on the ballot for the voters to decide. Those are the options. But the legislature took a fourth pathway: It adopted the initiatives and then, in a lame duck session, amended them, dramatically altering the laws that had been proposed by the citizens. We held that that this violated the Michigan Constitution’s direct democracy provision.

What are some challenges facing state courts?

Some of the same ones that are facing students. Generative AI is front and center in conversations everywhere I go. People just don’t know what’s going to happen. How do you plan? How do you staff? What ethical rules are implicated? Everybody has generally assumed, for instance, that video is a reliable form of evidence. But now we are in this incredibly complex world with videos that are generated by AI. Courts are going to have to grapple with that.

On a personal level, I am now using some AI tools. I don’t spend less time getting ready for oral arguments, but I am able to go deeper on the hard questions — resolving the easier questions more quickly and having the time to do a deeper dive on the really hard questions.

Funding is always an issue. Before this job I spent 20 years working on public school issues, and the funding mechanisms — at least in Michigan — are similar. You have funding units that get money from all different sources. Some money is from federal grants, some from state allocations, and some from local resources. Often courts have the highest needs when the economy is not doing well. You have less money and you still need to meet those needs. That’s always a challenge.

We also have institutional distrust. That is happening everywhere, and courts are not immune to that. In the divisive online world we live in, how do we make sure people trust our third branch of government? While appellate judges are of course important to shaping the law, our trial court judges are where the public interacts with the court system and where trust is built. When someone goes to court for a divorce, a debt collection, or a landlord-tenant matter, it is critical that judges treat the parties in a kind way, make sure parties feel heard, and ensure parties feel the system is fair.

What is your response when people say courts are too politicized? 

I wish I had a magic answer for that question. Again, I really believe in the power of our trial courts. They are hyper-local and our judges are deeply enmeshed in their communities. Our local courthouses are where we can solve problems and meet people where they are. I don’t hear people making comments about those courts being politicized. But you certainly hear that about certain state supreme court decisions. People don’t realize how many state supreme court cases are unanimous or include members of different judicial ideologies agreeing on an outcome. It’s a lot of cases. The controversial ones get all the ink, but people forget how often we agree. Perhaps we need to talk about that more.

I do think it’s important that judges not spew a lot of rhetoric, whether in their opinions or from the bench. The best legal decisions are well-reasoned and persuasive without throwing personal jabs at other judges. I was taught in law school and early in my legal career that if you’re being hyperbolic and hurling insults, that’s not particularly persuasive legal writing. Judges should emulate professionalism and do all they can to ensure trust in the third branch.

Erin Geiger Smith is a writer and editor at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Suggested Citation: Erin Geiger Smith, A Conversation with Michigan Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Welch, Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ(Mar. 3, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/conversation-michigan-supreme-court-justice-elizabeth-welch