Was the new standard from People v. Stevens a decision by the Michigan Supreme Court interpreting the federal Constitution?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Was the new standard from People v. Stevens, 498 Mich. 162, 869 N.W.2d 233 (2015), for determining whether a trial judge exhibited improper partiality, a decision by the Michigan Supreme Court interpreting the federal Constitution? 2. When a state court of last resort interprets the federal Constitution and, later, in a collateral review of a state conviction, has cause to determine whether that interpretation is a “new rule” deserving retroactive application under Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), must that state court follow the guidelines set by the United States Supreme Court in Teague and its progeny for applying the new rule retroactively? 3. Should this Court extend the holding in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016) and require, as a matter of constitutional law, state collateral review courts to give retroactive effect to new watershed rules of criminal procedure implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding?