Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has told a federal court she is immune from allegations that she violated former Gov. Rick Snyder's aide’s due process rights when he was among the officials indicted following the Flint water crisis.

In a motion to dismiss filed Friday, Nessel argued she was not personally involved with the Flint water prosecution team. Even if she had been, Nessel claimed she was acting in her official capacity and entitled to immunity from Richard Baird’s claims that his due process rights were violated during the indictment process.

“But even assuming the attorney general was involved with the Flint water prosecution team (she was not), she was acting in an advocacy capacity and is thus entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for all claims,” the motion read.

Baird, a special adviser to Snyder from 2012 to 2018, was one of several officials criminally charged in 2019 after the Flint water crisis, in which state-appointed emergency managers changed the city's water source from Lake Huron to the Flint River, leading to lead contamination. Baird's charges were dismissed in 2022 after the Michigan Supreme Court ruled the indictments were invalid due to being issued by a one-judge grand jury. A 2023 ruling also blocked the revival of charges against seven officials involved.

Baird filed a lawsuit in May 2024, alleging his due process rights were violated because the indictment procedure did not include a preliminary examination. He claimed that the one-person grand jury method allowed prosecutors to circumvent his ability to defend himself. Baird expanded his suit in November 2024, adding claims of unreasonable search and seizure and conspiracy to violate his Fourth, Fifth, and 14th Amendment rights.

Nessel argued in her motion that her actions fell under absolute immunity because she was acting in the scope of her prosecutorial duties when seeking an indictment. She stressed that prosecutors are immune for investigative acts undertaken in preparation for judicial proceedings, including decisions to file a criminal complaint and seek an arrest warrant.

Nessel further noted that Baird’s allegations against her were focused on her role as an advocate, not an investigator. “Baird instead rests entirely on the fact that no preliminary examination took place to support his argument that the attorney general was acting in an investigatory role. But caselaw does not support this bright-line temporal distinction,” Nessel argued.

The motion emphasized that Baird did not allege Nessel acted as a witness or investigator, which could have affected her immunity. Nessel also pointed out that she was not involved in appointing the trial judge who oversaw the case or issued the indictment against Baird, highlighting that the trial court made those determinations.

Along with Nessel, former chief deputy attorney general Fadwa Hammoud and Wayne County prosecutor Kym Worthy also filed motions to dismiss Baird’s lawsuit, asserting they were entitled to prosecutorial immunity. They argued that Baird’s claims fell within the judicial phase of the prosecution and that Baird did not sufficiently allege personal involvement on their part.

Hammoud and Worthy also argued that Baird’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. They said the actions Baird alleged were taken in their roles as prosecutors during the judicial phase, which is protected by absolute immunity. Additionally, they argued Baird’s civil conspiracy claim could not survive because the defendants were part of the same collective entity.

All three defendants asserted that Baird’s complaint also failed to establish a violation of constitutional rights. Nessel, in particular, pointed out that Baird's claim that he was denied a preliminary examination does not rise to the level of a federal constitutional violation, citing Michigan case law that established no such right was guaranteed under state law.

Baird’s counsel declined to comment Monday. The defendants' counsel did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Baird is represented by Michael B. Rizik Jr. of Rizik & Rizik PC, Michael W. Edmunds of Gault Davison PC, and Nancy A. Temple of Katten & Temple LLP. Nessel is represented by Kyla L. Barranco and Mark E. Donnelly of the Michigan Department of the Attorney General. Hammoud and Worthy are represented by Joshua S. Smith and Kristin M. Southerland of the Michigan Department of the Attorney General.

The case is Richard L. Baird v. Dana M. Nessel et al., case number 2:24-cv-11205, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.