No. 25-275
Clifford James Frost, Jr. v. Dana Nessel, Attorney General of Michigan
Response Waived
Tags: bad-faith-prosecution constitutional-challenge criminal-prosecution election-law pre-emption younger-abstention
Latest Conference:
2025-10-10
Question Presented (from Petition)
Does the "bad faith" exception to Younger preemption require the plaintiff to show that he or she has been subject to multiple criminal prosecutions as a prerequisite to proving that a prosecution has been undertaken in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction, or can a single criminal prosecution be sufficient?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does the 'bad faith' exception to Younger pre-emption require the plaintiff to show that he or she has been subject to multiple criminal prosecutions as a prerequisite to proving that a prosecution has been undertaken in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction, or can a single criminal prosecution be sufficient?
Docket Entries
2025-10-14
Petition DENIED.
2025-09-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/10/2025.
2025-09-18
Waiver of right of respondent Dana Nessel, Attorney General of Michigan to respond filed.
2025-07-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 10, 2025)
Attorneys
Clifford James Frost, Jr.
Edward Francis Kickham III — Kickham Hanley PLLC, Petitioner
Dana Nessel, Attorney General of Michigan
Ann Maurine Sherman — Michigan Department of Attorney General, Respondent