Michigan Supreme Court to Review Legislative Dispute Over Unsent Bills
In a case that underscores the complexities of legislative processes and separations of power, the Michigan Supreme Court is poised to hear a significant dispute between the state’s Senate and House of Representatives. This development stems from a lawsuit initiated by the Senate after the House withheld nine bills from the governor’s desk, despite their passage in both chambers during the 2023-2024 legislative session.
The contested bills, which address issues such as public employee health care premiums, retirement plans for corrections officers, and wage garnishment, were approved under a Democratic-led government. However, when Republicans gained control of the House in January 2025, they argued that it was too late to act on the previous term’s unfinished business.
The Michigan Court of Claims had previously ruled against the House, stating that the Michigan Constitution mandates the transmission of such bills to the governor without exceptions for prior legislative terms. Judge Sima Patel noted, “there is no exception for bills passed by a prior Legislature” in her opinion. Despite this, she refrained from compelling the House to act, citing the importance of maintaining separation of powers.
The Court of Appeals supported the lower court’s interpretation that the bills should have been sent to the governor but disagreed with the decision not to enforce it. Consequently, they remanded the case to the lower court with instructions to order the House to forward the bills.
As the Supreme Court prepares for a May hearing, the Republican-led House is optimistic about the upcoming proceedings. According to Jeff Wiggins, spokesperson for House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Twp), “This is a big win for the Michigan House of Representatives and the separation of powers. The Court of Appeals decision was incorrect and flawed, and everyone knows it.” Wiggins emphasized that a new Legislature cannot be held accountable for the previous one’s inaction.
On the other side, Democratic Senate leaders are gearing up for the legal proceedings, confident that the Court of Appeals decision aligns with precedents. Their legal response to the House’s appeal states, “The decision of the Court of Appeals is not clearly erroneous and does not conflict with prior decisions of this Court – indeed the decision follows and correctly applies several decisions of this Court.”
—
Read More Michigan News
