A new report from Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel's office defends its approach to the Flint water crisis prosecution, blaming a Supreme Court ruling for the collapse of criminal charges and leaving many Flint residents unsatisfied
The Michigan Attorney General's office has released a detailed report defending its handling of the failed criminal prosecution related to the Flint water crisis, attributing the collapse of charges to a Michigan Supreme Court decision. The report, issued Tuesday, acknowledges that justice has not been delivered for Flint residents and offers an account of the investigation's challenges and setbacks.
Attorney General Dana Nessel stated that her team acted appropriately in pursuing charges against former Gov. Rick Snyder and eight others using a one-person grand jury, a method that was later ruled unconstitutional by the state's highest court. The report maintains that prosecutors could not have anticipated the court's decision, which ultimately led to the dismissal of all charges after the statute of limitations expired for most offenses.
Community Response and Ongoing Frustration
Many Flint residents and activists expressed disappointment with the report, saying it provided little new information or closure. Some, like local activist Melissa Mays, criticized the report for appearing to deflect responsibility rather than address lingering questions about the failed prosecutions. Former Michigan Department of Health and Human Services director Nick Lyon, who faced multiple charges, also challenged the report's accuracy and completeness.
The Flint water crisis began in 2014 when the city switched its water source to the Flint River in an effort to save money, a decision made under the direction of an emergency manager appointed by then-Governor Snyder. The switch led to widespread lead contamination and a public health emergency that has affected Flint residents for more than a decade.
Legal Setbacks and Missed Deadlines
When Dana Nessel took office in 2019, she replaced the special prosecutor appointed by her predecessor, Bill Schuette, and restarted the investigation with a new team. The new prosecutors used a one-person grand jury to secure indictments, but the Michigan Supreme Court later ruled that this approach was not permitted under state law. By the time the ruling was issued, the statute of limitations had expired for most charges, effectively ending the criminal case without a trial.
The report also notes that several portions were redacted due to state law prohibiting the release of information presented exclusively to a one-person grand jury. Nessel has called on lawmakers to change this law so that transcripts from the case can be made public as part of the historical record.
Calls for Accountability and Next Steps
Despite the report's release, many in Flint remain unsatisfied with the outcome and continue to seek answers and accountability. The Attorney General's office maintains that its actions were appropriate given the information and legal framework at the time, but acknowledges that the result has left many families without justice.
Flint residents have only recently begun to receive payments from more than $600 million in legal settlements related to the crisis. The report's release is unlikely to end debate over who bears responsibility for the failed prosecutions and the ongoing impact of the water crisis on the community.
The Flint water crisis remains one of Michigan's most significant public health and government accountability challenges in recent history. The Attorney General's report may serve as a record of the legal and procedural hurdles faced, but for many in Flint, the search for justice continues.
