The High Court Takes Up a Capitol Battle
The Michigan Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in a lawsuit pitting the state Senate against the House of Representatives over nine bills that passed during the 2023-2024 legislative session but were never delivered to Governor Gretchen Whitmer for her signature.
The case will be heard during the Supreme Court's May 6-7, 2026 session, according to court orders. Both sides have been given four weeks to submit supplemental briefs before oral arguments take place.
The Stalled Legislation
The nine bills in question deal with public employee health care premiums, retirement plans for corrections officers, and wage garnishment. They were all passed during what was then a Democratic-led legislative trifecta, with Republicans controlling the governor's office.
When Republicans assumed control of the House in January 2025, the party's legislative leadership argued it was too late to complete the unfinished business of the previous term. The new Republican majority claimed that no Legislature should be bound by the actions—or inactions—of a prior Legislature.
Legal Battles in the Courts
The Michigan Senate sued the House last year when the House refused to deliver the nine bills to the governor, even though they had passed both chambers of the Legislature.
The Michigan Court of Claims initially ruled in favor of the Senate but did little to enforce its ruling. In her opinion, Judge Sima Patel wrote that 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."
Despite this legal finding, Judge Patel refused to order the House to forward the bills to the governor. She cited concerns with separation of powers between the branches of government as a reason for not issuing an enforcement order.
The Michigan Court of Appeals found the ruling that the bills should have been sent to the governor was correct, but the decision to withhold 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 to the governor.
In late October, in a 2-1 decision, Judge Thomas C. Cameron wrote that a writ of mandamus, which compels a government official to properly fulfill their official duties, was the proper remedy in the case. He ruled that the Court of Claims had properly ruled in favor of the Senate to force the House to present the bills to the governor.
House Republicans Appeal
The House appealed that decision to the state Supreme Court in December, arguing that the Court of Appeals had made multiple errors.
"The Court of Appeals erred… first erred in reaching the merits of the Senate's claims against the House, given that the claims are not justiciable and the Senate lacks standing," the House wrote in its filing to the Supreme Court.
The House also argued that the appellate court "compounded that error when interpreting the constitutional text at issue to require the 103rd House to present bills passed by the 102nd Legislature. Last, it erred in the relief it ordered, by directing the Court of Claims to issue a writ of mandamus against the Legislature."
Political Implications
The Michigan Supreme Court has a 6-1 majority of justices appointed or nominated by Democrats, and they have scheduled the case to be heard during their May 6-7, 2026 session.
Jeff Wiggins, spokesperson for House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Twp), welcomed the Supreme Court's decision. "This is a big win for the Michigan House of Representatives and the separation of powers," Wiggins said in an emailed statement.
"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."
Meanwhile, Democratic Senate leadership stated they look forward to having their day before the court. In their response to the House's request for an appeal, the Senate's lawyers wrote: "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."
They added: "Because that decision is in accord with this Court's decisions, there are no legal principles of major significance to be resolved by this Court."
What's at Stake
The outcome of this case could have lasting implications for how the Michigan judicial branch interacts with the legislative branch. It raises fundamental questions about whether one Legislature can bind a subsequent Legislature, and whether courts can enforce such binding against elected representatives.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Senate, it could mean that bills passed by one Legislature must be delivered to the governor regardless of who controls the House at the time. This would require the new House to present bills it did not pass itself, potentially creating awkward political situations where legislators must act on legislation they did not support.
Conversely, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the House, it would establish that each Legislature operates independently and is not bound by the actions of its predecessors. This would give each new Legislature complete control over its own agenda, free from obligations created by prior chambers.
The Case Moves Forward
Both parties now await the Supreme Court's ruling, which could come after oral arguments in May. The decision will have broad implications for Michigan's legislative process and could set important precedents for how the state handles unfinished business from prior legislative sessions.
The Supreme Court's May session will be closely watched by lawmakers, legal experts, and Michigan residents who want to understand how the state's democratic institutions function when control shifts between parties.