Michigan Supreme Court Asked to Rule on Unsent Bills Dispute

For months, a unique legal battle has unfolded in Michigan, drawing attention from lawmakers and citizens alike. The pivotal question: should the current legislative body be compelled to forward previously adopted bills to Governor Gretchen Whitmer for approval or rejection?

This week, the Michigan Supreme Court received a petition from House Republicans seeking to reverse a lower court’s decision mandating that all bills passed by both the House and Senate be sent to the governor. The controversy involves nine bills approved last year when Democrats held legislative control, though none reached the governor before the Republicans gained the majority in January.

The House GOP’s appeal argues, “If there is any duty at all to present a bill to the governor, that duty must begin and ends with the legislature that passed the bill—not a subsequent and distinct legislative body, which cannot be legally bound by its predecessor or forced to carry out that prior legislature’s unfinished business.”

Moreover, House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Township) contends that the Senate lacks the standing to sue over what he describes as an inter-chamber political conflict.

The disputed bills propose various changes, such as preventing the collection of public assistance payments by debt collectors, enabling Detroit historical museums to request millage approvals from voters, and including corrections officers in the Michigan State Police pension plans.

Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks (D-Grand Rapids) criticized the appeal, labeling it “a waste of the court’s time and a distraction from the important work at hand.” She emphasized that the ongoing litigation diverts attention from pressing issues like healthcare accessibility and cost-of-living challenges.

“That’s where our focus needs to be,” she stated, expressing frustration over Republican efforts to block bills aimed at supporting firefighters, teachers, and corrections officers with better health insurance and retirement benefits. “It’s appalling.”

The state’s highest court is under no obligation to consider the case and has no deadline for its decision. Should the court choose not to hear it, the ruling from the Michigan Court of Appeals will remain in effect.