Michigan Supreme Court Set to Decide Whether Legislature Can Be Bound by Previous Term's Bills

Senate v. House: High Court to Decide if Nine Stalled Bills Must Reach Governor

LANSING — The Michigan Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this May in a high-stakes legal battle between the state Senate and House of Representatives over whether nine bills passed during the previous legislative session must be formally delivered to Governor Gretchen Whitmer.

The case centers on a fundamental question of state government: Can one legislative session bind a future one?

The Nine Stalled Bills

The dispute involves nine bills that cleared both chambers during the 2023-2024 legislative session when Democrats controlled the Legislature and the governor's office. The legislation covers three major policy areas:

• Public employee health care premiums
• Retirement plans for corrections officers
• Wage garnishment rules

All nine bills passed under a Democratic trifecta and were ready for Governor Whitmer to sign or veto. But when Republicans assumed control of the House in January 2025, the new legislative leadership refused to forward the bills to the governor.

The Legal Battle

The Michigan Senate sued the House last year when the chamber refused to deliver the bills. The Michigan Court of Claims ruled in favor of the Senate, finding that the state Constitution mandates delivery of bills passed by one Legislature to the governor regardless of which party controls the next session.

"The Michigan Constitution's language is mandatory and leaves no room for the exceptions that defendants claim. Notably, there is no exception for bills passed by a prior Legislature," Judge Sima Patel wrote in her opinion.

Despite the ruling, the Court of Claims "did little to enforce its ruling," according to Michigan Public. Judge Patel refused to order the House to forward the bills, citing concerns with separation of powers between the branches of government.

The Court of Appeals reversed that decision, finding the ruling that the bills should have been sent to the governor was correct but the refusal to issue an order was wrong. The appellate court sent the matter back to the lower court with directions to order the House to forward the bills.

House Pushes Back

The Republican-led House has seized on the Supreme Court's decision to hear the appeal as a major victory for legislative independence.

"This is a big win for the Michigan House of Representatives and the separation of powers," said Jeff Wiggins, spokesperson for House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Twp). "The Court of Appeals decision was incorrect and flawed, and everyone knows it. Now the Supreme Court is agreeing to hear our appeal so we can make the obvious and common sense case that no Legislature can bind the next Legislature, and no court can hold a new Legislature elected by the people responsible for the failures of the previous Speaker and former representatives' lack of action."

The argument reflects a broader tension in Michigan politics about whether elected officials from one term can impose their will on their successors.

Senate Fights Appeal

Democratic Senate leadership is pushing back against the House's appeal, arguing that the Court of Appeals decision correctly applied established legal principles.

"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," reads the Senate's response to the House's request for an appeal.

Senate lawyers argue there are no legal principles of major significance to be resolved by the Supreme Court because the Court of Appeals decision aligns with prior Michigan Supreme Court rulings.

What Comes Next

The Michigan Supreme Court has set a May date to hear oral arguments meant to help justices decide whether they want to take up the case. The court's willingness to hear the appeal signals the legal battle may extend further.

This case could set an important precedent for how Michigan handles legislative business when party control shifts. If the Supreme Court rules that bills must be delivered regardless of which party controls the Legislature, it would mean the current House would be obligated to forward the nine stalled bills to Governor Whitmer.

If the Court rules that one Legislature cannot bind a future one, the nine bills would remain in limbo, never reaching the governor's desk.

The Stakes

The nine bills cover significant policy areas affecting Michigan residents. Public employee health care premiums impact thousands of workers across state government and universities. Corrections officer retirement plans affect the state's largest law enforcement agency. Wage garnishment rules touch on financial protections for Michigan families.

The outcome of this case could determine whether those policies get implemented or remain on the shelf indefinitely.

Sources:

• Michigan Public: Senate v. House to appear before Michigan Supreme Court in dispute over stalled bills — https://www.michiganpublic.org/politics-government/2026-04-01/senate-v-house-to-appear-before-michigan-supreme-court-in-dispute-over-stalled-bills
• WEMU-FM: Senate v. House to appear before Michigan Supreme Court — https://www.wemu.org/michigan-news/2026-04-01/senate-v-house-to-appear-before-michigan-supreme-court
• Michigan Advance: Michigan Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in May for lawsuit over 2024 withheld bills — https://michiganadvance.com/briefs/michigan-supreme-court-will-hear-oral-arguments-in-may-for-lawsuit-over-2024-withheld-bills/
• Free Press: Michigan Supreme Court to hear House GOP appeal in stalled bills case — https://eu.freep.com/story/news/politics/2026/03/31/michigan-supreme-court-stalled-bills-case/89399329007/
• OurMidland: POLITICS: High Court snubs Michigan in Line 5 fight; Whitmer moves to secure tariff refunds — https://www.ourmidland.com/news/article/whitmer-line5-tariff-court-michigan-hall-22186031.php