Michigan's top court decided that Trump can stay on the ballot. The decision is based on the theory that the question of who is on the ballot is a nonjusticiable political question. Under that doctrine, matters that are considered "political issues" are ones the Court should not weigh in on, particularly if the issue is something that is normally committed solely to the province of another branch of government.
The complicating factor is, if the court can't decide the issue, who does? Because in both Michigan and Colorado, the elected officials in charge of elections are the ones who decided Trump should not be on the ballot. If it's a nonjusticiable political issue, how can the court be telling that official who can and can't be on the ballot?
Here, the Michigan court decided that whether Trump was disqualified because of his participation in insurrection was a nonjusticiable political question, but then ruled that the elected official didn't have authority to exclude Trump from the ballot. Seems like a poorly reasoned decision. If they really were relying on the political question doctrine, the outcome should have been, "we can't interfere, so whatever the duly elected official in charge here says is what is going to happen." Here, they got around that issue by holding that the Michigan official here didn't have any statutory authority to decide who was on the ballot, and he had to put on the ballot whoever the GOP said he had to put on the ballot.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/27/us/m ... allot.html
