Michigan Supreme Court to Decide Whether State House Was Required to Present Nine Bills to Governor

Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Senate Lawsuit Over Withheld Bills

Lansing — The Michigan Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in May on whether the state House of Representatives was required to present nine bills approved by a previous Democratic majority to Governor Gretchen Whitmer.

The Michigan Senate sued the House last year when the House refused to deliver the legislation to the governor, even though the bills had passed both chambers during the 2023-2024 legislative session.

The nine bills deal with public employee health care premiums, retirement plans for corrections officers, and wage garnishment. They were all passed by what was then a Democratic-led trifecta between the Legislature's chambers and the governor's office.

When Republicans assumed control of the House for the current term in January 2025, the party's legislative leadership argued it was too late to finish the business of the previous term.

Lower Courts Have Ruled Bills Must Be Presented

The Michigan Court of Claims disagreed with the House, ruling that the bills should have been sent to the governor. The 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 that, she 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.

The 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, and sent the matter back to the lower court, with directions to order the House to forward the bills.

The Supreme Court has now set a May date to hear arguments on the case.

Republican House Welcomes Supreme Court Review

The Republican-led House is praising the scheduling update.

Jeff Wiggins is spokesperson for House Speaker Matt Hall.

"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."

Democratic Senate Pushes for Court Decision

Meanwhile, Democratic Senate leadership says it's looking forward to having its day before the court. That's as its lawyers fight against the appeal in legal briefs.

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

Legislative Limbo Continues

The nine bills remain in legislative limbo at the state Capitol.

When Democrats controlled the Michigan Legislature and Governor's office during the 2023-2024 session, they passed legislation that would benefit public employees including corrections officers.

The House Republican leadership took the position that they could not be held responsible for bills passed by the previous legislative session, arguing that each Legislature should start fresh with its own priorities.

The case raises constitutional questions about whether a Legislature can bind a future Legislature and whether the courts can enforce such binding.

A decision is expected by July.