Michigan Supreme Court Set to Hear May Arguments on Withheld Bills Lawsuit Between Senate and House

Michigan Supreme Court Set to Hear May Arguments on Withheld Bills Lawsuit Between Senate and House

The Michigan Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this May in a significant constitutional dispute between the Democratic-controlled Senate and the Republican-led House of Representatives over nine bills that were passed by both chambers but never presented to Governor Gretchen Whitmer for signature or veto.

The case, Michigan Senate v. Michigan House of Representatives, centers on nine bills from the 2024 legislative session that were never delivered to Governor Whitmer by then-House Speaker Matt Hall. The bills span a range of policy areas including corrections officer pension eligibility, debt collection protections, and public employee health insurance contributions.

Constitutional Duties at Stake

According to the Michigan Constitution, "every bill passed by the legislature shall be presented to the governor before it becomes law." The law requires that bills be presented to the governor with sufficient time to review them prior to the earliest date that legislation may take effect.

The Democratic Senate argues that Speaker Hall's withholding of the bills violates this constitutional mandate. A lawsuit filed in February 2025 by Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks and Senate Democrats contends that House Speaker Hall lacked the authority to withhold the bills for a "legal review" after the legislative session had ended.

"The right to veto legislation is the sole constitutional prerogative of the Governor and it cannot be usurped by a legislative body or a legislator after a legislative session is over," the lawsuit states.

House Bills in Question

The nine bills at the center of the dispute include:

• Three bills (2024 HB 4177, 2024 HB 5817, and 2024 HB 5818) that enact a History Museum Authority Act and authorize funding for county authorities formed under this act

• Three bills (2024 HB 4655, 2023 HB 4666 and 2023 HB 4667) that expand eligibility for the Michigan State Police Retirement Plan and options for receiving service credits

• Three bills (2023 HB 4900, 2023 HB 4901, and 2024 HB 5058) that provide additional protections to debtors in bankruptcy and garnishment proceedings or mandate a minimum percentage that public employers must contribute to public employee health insurance plans

Court of Appeals Ruling

In October 2025, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a ruling ordering the Republican-led House to present the nine bills to Governor Whitmer. The court determined that the House has a constitutional duty to deliver the legislation, even though the initial ruling from the Michigan Court of Claims had stopped short of ordering the House to comply.

The House had failed to form a quorum through its final sessions of the legislative year, due in part to Michigan House GOP members boycotting several sessions alongside at least one Democrat. On December 20, 2024, the Michigan Senate passed the bills and returned them to the House to be presented to the governor.

Senate Democrats Respond

Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks, D-Grand Rapids, called the latest ruling "a particularly meaningful win." In a statement, Brinks said, "No matter how deep our political differences, the Constitution must be followed. Skirting the law is bad enough, but it's so much worse that they did it in the name of stopping bills that would have helped thousands of their constituents make ends meet."

House Republican Defense

House Speaker Matt Hall's spokesman Greg Manz criticized Senate Majority Leader Brinks for not advancing certain legislation passed by the House in the current session. Manz stated that Hall's legal review is "over an entirely unprecedented situation to ensure the House acts constitutionally."

The case presents what the House is likely to argue is a political question that courts need not answer. However, the Senate contends that "this case presents a dispute over the meaning of the State Constitution and the fact that Defendants have a different interpretation of the Constitution does not counsel against judicial intervention."

Legal Representation

The state Senate is represented by Goodman Acker PC. The case is Michigan Senate v. Michigan House of Representatives, Mich. Ct. Cl., No. 25-000014-MB, with the complaint filed on February 3, 2025.

What Comes Next

The Michigan Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in May, marking the next major development in this ongoing constitutional dispute. The court's decision could set important precedents for how the Michigan Legislature handles bills that pass both chambers but are not presented to the governor, particularly when legislative leadership changes after a session has ended.

The case also touches on broader questions of legislative procedure and the separation of powers within Michigan state government. How the court rules could impact future interactions between the House and Senate, particularly during transitions of power between political parties.

Related State Supreme Court Activity

The Michigan Supreme Court has been quite active in recent months, hearing arguments on other significant cases including the Line 5 Pipeline tunnel project. The court heard arguments in March on whether state regulators adequately protected the environment when they approved Enbridge's tunnel project for the Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.

The withheld bills case represents another major constitutional challenge before the state's highest court, one that could have lasting implications for Michigan's legislative process and the balance of power within the state government.