Ted Nugent endorsed Judge O'Grady.

"As a Rule of Law Justice, I will prioritize governance rooted in the letter of our laws, not the whims of our leaders. As a Rule of Law Justice, I will protect the rights of all and make Michigan safe for our families."- Judge Patrick William O'Grady

"Judge O'Grady is an advocate for justice, committed to fostering equitable resolutions and steadfastly upholding the foundational values of fairness and impartiality. In addition to his judicial responsibilities, he meticulously supervises appellate proceedings, carefully examining cases appealed from lower-tier trial courts or administrative agencies. In doing so, he bolsters the integrity and coherence of legal outcomes, ensuring the consistent application of the law across all levels of the judiciary." (see the About Judge O'Grady page on the Judge O'Grady for Supreme Court website.)

"Judge O'Grady's dedication to justice, enforcing the law, and protecting the innocent began as a Michigan State Trooper, where he patrolled and investigated crime. He became a Certified Police Officer in Michigan in September 1995 and served for almost six years at:

•  Jonesville State Police Post
• Northville State Police Post
• Metro North State Police Post
• Ypsilanti State Police Post

He also served as a Legal Instructor at the Michigan State Police Academy." 

(see the Law Enforcement page of Judge O'Grady's campaign website,)

"Judge O’Grady has a proven track record of protecting families, protecting your rights, and protecting our Michigan. As a Rule-of-Law Judge in the trial court, he will bring that same philosophy to the highest court as a Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court." (see O'Grady campaign website homepage)

Dr. Sherry O'Donnell endorsed Judge O'Grady

Newt Gingrich endorsed Judge O'Grady 

Patrick W. O'Grady completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2024.

In regard to Justice Clarence Thomas, O'Grady said "He's an incredible man[.]" 

Disagreed with the majority opinion in Mothering Just. v. Att'y Gen., No. 165325, 2024 WL 3610042 (Mich. July 31, 2024), opinion clarified, 10 N.W.3d 845 (Mich. 2024). 

Justice Welch authored the opinion in which Justices Bernstein, Cavanagh, and Bolden joined. Justice Bolden filed concurring opinion, in which, Zahra and Viviano joined. Justice Zahra dissented joined by Justices Clement and Viviano.

Holding(s): The Court held that the Michigan Legislature may not amend a law proposed by initiative petition in the same session that the Legislature had enacted it finding that "adopt-and-amend" approach violated the people's constitutional right to propose and enact laws via the initiative process. As a result, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstated the original laws, 2018 PA 337 and 2018 PA 338. The court established that an unconstitutional statute is void from the beginning, but it can apply a more flexible approach to avoid injustice from full retroactivity. The Court thus held "that the Wage Act and the Earned Sick Leave Act shall go into effect 205 days after this opinion’s publication date." (35)

Analysis: The Court analyzed whether the adopt-and-amend process was constitutional, emphasizing that political power is inherently vested in the people according to the Michigan Constitution. The Court highlighted that the Constitution reserves the power to propose and enact laws directly to the people through initiatives, thus limiting the Legislature’s authority. The court concluded that Article 2, § 9 prohibits the Legislature from rejecting an initiative without voter approval. Allowing an adopt-and-amend process would make parts of § 9 unnecessary. The court emphasized that the ratifiers could not have intended to create a contradictory option beyond the three specified for the Legislature. Furthermore, any ambiguity in the provision must be interpreted in favor of the people's rights, preventing the Legislature from circumventing their reserved powers. The Court also determined that the Legislature's actions constituted an undue burden on voters’ direct-democracy rights, leading to the conclusion that 2018 PA 368 and 2018 PA 369 were unconstitutional.

Bolden Concurrence: Justice Bolden fully concurred with the majority that 2018 PA 368 and 2018 PA 369 were unconstitutional for amending ballot initiatives within the same legislative session, contrary to the Michigan Constitution. Bolden wrote separately to "express ... disappointment that no remedy exists through which [the Court] could provide the voters with the constitutional guarantees of the initiative clause by placing this matter on the ballot for a general election." (5)

Clements Dissent: The dissent would have affirmed the court of appeals decision arguing that the Legislature’s power under Const 1963, art 4, § 1 is limited only if the Constitution expressly says so. And Const 1963, art 2, § 9 is silent about whether the Legislature may amend a law proposed by initiative petition in the same session that the Legislature has enacted it." The dissent argued that Article 2, § 9 does not prohibit the Legislature from amending a law proposed by initiative petition within the same session it was enacted. While Article 2, § 9 requires the Legislature to enact or reject initiatives without change during the initial 40 session days, it does not prevent amendments afterward. The dissent emphasized that allowing amendments could help refine laws and address oversights. 

Zahra's dissent: Justice Zahra argued that adopting and amending initiative petitions within the same legislative session was constitutionally acceptable. Zahra criticized the majority's remedy of abrogating 2018 PA 368 and 2018 PA 369 and reviving earlier versions of the laws, claiming it improperly intruded on legislative authority. The dissent highlighted that the majority's actions—reviving rejected initiative petitions and rewriting their language—had no precedent in Michigan law and overstepped judicial power. They contended that reviving the previous statutes would significantly alter labor relations and sick leave entitlements without reflecting the Legislature's intent. Instead, the dissent argued that if the majority believed in a broad interpretation of its authority, it should have allowed the initiative to be placed on the ballot for voters to decide, thus respecting the people's constitutional rights to direct democracy.

Background: In 2018, two initiative petitions were introduced: the Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act (Wage Act) and the Earned Sick Time Act. The Wage Act aimed to raise the minimum wage significantly and adjust it for inflation, while the Earned Sick Time Act required employers to provide paid sick time to employees. After adopting the initiatives without change the Legislature chose amended them. Plaintiffs argued that this "adopt-and-amend" tactic violated their constitutional rights under the initiative process. The Court of Claims agreed, ruling that the Legislature's actions were unconstitutional and that the original laws remained in effect. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, stating that the Michigan Constitution does not prohibit the Legislature from amending laws it adopts during the same session.

Applicable Law(s):

• The Court characterized the law as "The Constitution’s plain text provides the Legislature with three discrete options upon receiving a valid initiative petition. Const 1963, art 2, § 9. The two options through which the Legislature rejects an initiative require the issue to then go directly to voters. Id. The third option—adoption—is the only option that does not require voters to decide the matter directly. Id. Thus, the plain text of Article 2, § 9 makes clear that the Legislature cannot reject or alter an initiative without the voters’ approval." (13)

"We are very fortunate that we do have a country that was founded on Judeo-Christian principles of our founding fathers. We also have the same thing for our state,” O'Grady said. 'If you read the preamble to the state Constitution, they're basically forming this state pursuant to Almighty God. It's in the preamble. It's right there. That's how they open it up. A group of people saying, 'we're getting ready to create this state, and we're doing it for almighty God.'" O'Grady added, “When you have a Christian worldview as an example, your conscience is in line with those documents. It's really only when you don't have that or when you're trying to stretch them, bend them, change them, create something that's not there, it's acrimony in your soul."