A Legal Standoff in Michigan: State Spending on Hold
A Michigan judge has intervened to halt the expenditure of approximately $645 million from a previous state budget cycle, following a legal battle over budgetary control. This action arises amid a dispute between state lawmakers and the executive branch over the management and allocation of funds.
The Michigan House Appropriations Committee had previously rejected a proposal to reclassify these funds as work projects, which would have allowed continued spending. However, the state attorney general later determined that the legislative move was partly unconstitutional, prompting the House of Representatives to take legal action to prevent the use of the funds.
Attorney Sean Dutton, representing the House, emphasized the necessity of legislative oversight on executive spending. He stated, “We appropriated these funds for one year. They think that once we appropriate them, we’re done and they can just spend that money for essentially five years if they want to without any involvement from us. And that just cannot be right. The constitution assigns to us the appropriations power and frankly for them to wield it without any oversight is its own constitutional violation.”
Dutton argued for judicial intervention to prevent irreversible expenditure, highlighting potential difficulties in recovering funds once spent.
Michigan Court of Claims Judge Michael Gadola concurred, issuing a preliminary injunction. In his order, Gadola noted, “Plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood of success on its claim that defendants’ actions are in violation of MCL 18.1451a(3), and its claim that MCL 1845a(3) is constitutional as applied.”
The state, represented by Assistant Attorney General Adam de Bear, acknowledged that the funds had not been fully returned to the state’s general fund due to existing commitments. De Bear estimated that around 70% of the funds had been properly allocated, suggesting that much of the spending might not be subject to legislative rejection.
De Bear contended that blocking the spending could inadvertently halt valid expenditures. He also argued against the notion that a single legislative chamber could unilaterally prevent the executive branch from executing its budgetary authority, stating, “They can’t maintain, after the point of appropriation, the ability to reject the executive’s decision-making process, so long as that decision-making process is within the duration of the expenditures.”
Despite these arguments, Gadola expressed skepticism over the state’s reasoning, particularly concerning the balance of power between legislative oversight and executive discretion.
The case is set for another hearing on February 27, as both sides continue to grapple with the constitutional implications of budgetary control and oversight in Michigan.
—
Read More Michigan News
