When a Court of Appeals Opinion Is Amended During Supreme Court Review, Prior Briefs Stand and Targeted Supplemental Briefing May Be Filed

Case: Jerome Dubrulle v. Great Lakes Water Authority (multiple consolidated dockets)  |  Court: Supreme Court of Michigan  |  Date: February 4, 2026

1. Introduction

The Michigan Supreme Court issued an administrative/procedural order in a set of consolidated appeals involving numerous plaintiffs and multiple governmental defendants, including the GREAT LAKES WATER AUTHORITY and, across different dockets, the CITY OF DETROIT, several Grosse Pointe municipalities, and the SOUTHEAST MACOMB SANITARY DISTRICT.

The order does not decide the merits of the underlying disputes. Instead, it addresses a common appellate-management problem: while Supreme Court review is underway (and briefing has already been filed), the Court of Appeals issues an amended opinion. The Supreme Court’s task here was to preserve orderly briefing, prevent duplication, and protect fairness to parties whose positions may be affected by the amendment.

Key procedural issue

  • How to treat briefs already filed in the Supreme Court when the Court of Appeals issues a January 22, 2026 amended opinion.
  • Whether and how parties may submit supplemental briefing directed to the amendment.

2. Summary of the Opinion (Order)

Acting “On order of the Chief Justice,” and “with the consent of the parties,” the Court ordered:

  • The briefs previously filed are “deemed to arise from” the January 22, 2026 amended opinion of the Court of Appeals.
  • Parties whose arguments were affected by the amendment may, but are not required to, file a supplemental brief by March 5, 2026.
  • Opposing parties may, but are not required to, file a responsive supplemental brief within 28 days after service of the supplemental brief.
  • All supplemental briefs are limited to 3,200 words.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

No precedents or prior case authorities are cited in the text of this order. The order is purely managerial and relies on the Court’s supervisory authority over its docket and briefing—implemented here by direction of the Chief Justice and party consent—rather than on a doctrinal analysis anchored in named precedent.

B. Legal Reasoning

Although concise, the order reflects three interlocking procedural principles:

  1. Continuity of briefing: By deeming existing briefs to “arise from” the amended Court of Appeals opinion, the Court avoids forcing parties to re-brief issues that remain unchanged. This preserves resources and prevents delay.
  2. Fair opportunity to address new or altered reasoning: An amended intermediate-appellate opinion can change the framing, rationale, or holdings relevant to Supreme Court review. The Court therefore authorizes targeted supplemental briefing for parties “whose arguments have been affected,” ensuring that the Supreme Court’s consideration is based on the operative lower-court decision.
  3. Proportionality and focus: The optional nature of supplementation (“may, but are not required to”) and the 3,200-word cap signal an intent to keep supplemental submissions narrowly tailored to the amendment, not a full re-argument of the entire case.

C. Practical Impact

This order’s immediate impact is procedural, but significant for appellate practice in Michigan:

  • Reduced re-briefing burdens: Parties can rely on their existing Supreme Court filings even after a lower-court amendment, unless the amendment materially affects their arguments.
  • Clear “safety valve” for amendments: The Court creates a structured pathway—deadlines, response window, and word limit—for addressing changes introduced by the amended Court of Appeals opinion.
  • Signals the operative decision under review: “Deemed to arise from” clarifies that Supreme Court review is tethered to the amended Court of Appeals opinion, reducing ambiguity about which version controls the parties’ arguments.
  • Template for future consolidated appeals: In complex, multi-party litigation (as reflected by the extensive captions and multiple dockets here), this mechanism helps maintain synchronized briefing across related cases.

D. Timeline Created by the Order

Event Deadline/Timing Who may file Scope/Limit
Supplemental brief addressing the amendment On or before March 5, 2026 Parties whose arguments were affected Optional; must address the amendment; 3,200 words
Responsive supplemental brief Within 28 days of service of the supplemental brief Opposing parties Optional; response to supplemental filing; 3,200 words

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • “Amended opinion”: A revised version of the Court of Appeals’ decision. Amendments may correct errors, clarify reasoning, or modify holdings.
  • “Briefs previously filed … deemed to arise from”: The Supreme Court treats the already-filed briefs as if they were filed in response to the amended Court of Appeals opinion—so parties do not automatically need to refile.
  • “Supplemental brief”: An additional, limited brief that addresses new matters—here, only what changed because of the amendment.
  • Word-count limitation (3,200 words): A constraint designed to keep the supplemental briefing focused and efficient.
  • Order “with the consent of the parties”: The parties agreed to this procedural handling, reducing the risk of claims of surprise or unfairness in the briefing schedule.

5. Conclusion

The February 4, 2026 order in Jerome Dubrulle v. Great Lakes Water Authority establishes a pragmatic briefing framework when the Court of Appeals issues an amended opinion after Supreme Court briefing has begun: existing briefs remain operative, while narrowly bounded, optional supplemental briefs may be filed to address the amendment under defined deadlines and a strict word limit. While not a merits ruling, the order is significant for Michigan appellate administration because it balances efficiency with procedural fairness in complex, multi-party appeals.