Noah P. HoodIncumbent
Candidate for Justice, Michigan Supreme Court
Noah Hood is a native Detroiter who attended Cass Technical High School, Yale College and Harvard Law School. He was a litigation associate at Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone and then an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Michigan and the Northern District of Ohio, handling fraud, opioid, money laundering and public corruption cases. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer appointed him to the Wayne County Third Circuit Court in 2019, where he heard felony cases and later presided over the Veterans Treatment Court, and to the Michigan Court of Appeals in 2022; he was elected to that court later in 2022. Whitmer appointed him to the Michigan Supreme Court effective May 27, 2025, to a partial term ending December 31, 2026. He was nominated by the Democratic Party.
Notable cases
- Attorney General v. Eli Lilly and Company (2026)
The state Attorney General was looking into how a drug company priced insulin. She cited a state law that protects buyers. That law skips conduct "specifically authorized" by law. A lower court said the company was exempt, since it may make and sell insulin. The question was how far the exemption goes.
The court said the exemption applies only if the specific conduct at issue is authorized by law. It overruled two older cases that read the exemption more broadly. It sent the case back to the lower court. Three justices said the Attorney General had no standing.
- Bowerman v. Red Oak Management Co. (2026)
A woman who lived in an apartment building fell into a shallow trench in the parking lot and broke her ankle. Workers hired to replace concrete had made the trench. She sued the building manager and the companies hired for the work. A lower court ruled for the manager and the contractor.
The court said a jury could find that the contractor was careless. It also said a jury could find that the manager did not keep the common areas fit for use. It reversed and sent the case back to the trial court.
- People v. Morgan (2026)
A driver was charged with causing a death in a crash with a motorcyclist. He wanted the jury to hear that the motorcyclist's blood alcohol level may have been as high as 0.081. A lower court kept that evidence out. The question was whether the jury may hear it.
The court said the judge was wrong to keep it out. It can help show whether the motorcyclist's own conduct caused the crash. The court reversed and sent the case back. The ruling covers only whether the evidence is relevant and fair to use.
Profiles are compiled from the candidate’s own statements and public records. We never tell you how to vote.