Most attention of an appellate court’s heavy lifting is given to its written opinions and orders: requested relief is either granted or denied.

But now and again a jurist includes a written statement signaling forward-looking interest in future arguments. Astute trial and appellate lawyers (and judges) make it a routine to review an appellate court’s orders for these future-looking statements.

Last December, Justice Welch’s statement in the order denying leave in People v Faraj Morris (167341) noted that the defendant did not ask the Michigan Supreme Court to overrule People v Oros, 502 Mich 229 (2018) but volunteered that she shares many of the concerns raised by the Oros dissent. In other words, Justice Welch is interested in revisiting Oros should the right future case appear at the court.

In January, Justice Cavanagh’s dissent in the order denying leave in Holder v Anchor Bay Investments, Inc. (167185) outlined her concerns about a published Court of Appeals decision that has “the potential to seriously affect the ability of tenants to enforce statutory duties owed to them.”

In April, Justice Cavanagh added a concurring statement to an order denying leave in People v Sarantay Houston (167753) to “highlight concerns about whether toolmark evidence satisfied the analysis under Daubert.” Justice Cavanagh explained how this case was not the right one to review, however, “because defendant has not done enough to show that the expert’s conclusions were the result of unreliable methods and principles in this case. Despite securing funds to hire his own expert, the defense did not present an expert to testify in his favor at the evidentiary hearing. Without such testimony or an offer of proof, defendant has not met his burden here to show that counsel was ineffective for failing to request a Daubert hearing.”

Also in April, Justice Thomas (the court’s newest justice) penned a concurring statement highlighting her interest in a future “appropriate case” about a rule for incarcerated witnesses appearing in prison clothing. People v Khavaree Nash (167862).

Judicial statements aren’t binding precedent, of course. But Supreme Court judicial statements are insights that trial counsel and judges can take into account when framing and developing a trial court record that may be subject to future appellate review.