Michigan Supreme Court Set to Hear Oral Arguments in May on Unconstitutional Withholding of Nine Bills

LANSING — The Michigan Supreme Court has agreed to hear oral arguments in May on whether the Republican-led House of Representatives violated the state Constitution by withholding nine bills passed during the previous legislative session from Governor Gretchen Whitmer for signature.

The case, Michigan Senate v. Michigan House of Representatives, marks a significant test of the state's lawmaking process and raises questions about the powers of legislative leaders after a session has ended.

The Nine Bills in Dispute

The nine bills were passed by the Michigan Legislature at the end of the 2024 session, before Republicans took control of the House in January 2025. When Matt Hall assumed the role of House Speaker, he withheld the bills from presentation to the governor, citing a "legal review" of the legislation.

According to court documents and statements from Senate leadership, Hall's office has maintained that the bills contain "technical problems" that require further examination before they can be presented to the governor. However, the Michigan Constitution is clear: "Every bill passed by the legislature shall be presented to the governor before it becomes law, and the governor shall have 14 days to consider it."

Bills at Stake

The nine bills span a range of policy issues, including measures that would benefit workers and first responders:

  • House Bills 4665-4667 would allow corrections officers to join the Michigan State Police retirement system
  • House Bills 4900-4901 would exempt public assistance benefits, unemployment benefits, disability benefits, and worker's compensation from being garnished to repay debts
  • House Bill 6058 would require public employers to increase the amount they contribute toward their employees' medical benefit plans
  • House Bills 4177 and 5817-5818 would allow the Wayne County Board of Commissioners to establish a history museum authority in Detroit, which could levy a voter-approved tax to support the museum

Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks, a Democratic co-plaintiff, said the House's actions violated the state Constitution and undermined the lawmaking process.

"At a time when Republican leaders across the country are breaking the law and getting away with it, this is a particularly meaningful win," Brinks stated following the Court of Appeals ruling in October 2025. "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."

Court of Appeals Ruling

In a 2-1 split decision on October 27, 2025, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Senate, stating that the House had a clear constitutional duty to present the bills to the governor. The published opinion was written by Judge Thomas Cameron and joined by Judge Daniel Korobkin, with Judge Christopher Murray dissenting.

The case was subsequently sent to the Michigan Court of Claims to issue a court order compelling the House to present the bills. However, the House and Speaker Hall filed an appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, arguing that the case presents a "political question" that courts should not answer.

House's Legal Arguments

In their appeal, the House and Speaker Hall's legal team contends that determining whether bills should be presented to the governor is a matter for legislative leadership, not the judiciary. They argue that the Constitution grants legislative bodies discretion in how they manage their business after a session concludes.

However, the state Senate's legal brief counters that allowing one legislative body to veto legislation passed by both chambers after a session ends would undermine the bicameral lawmaking process. The Senate's argument states: "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."

Labor Movement Response

Michigan's labor movement has strongly supported the Senate's position, calling the withheld bills "crucial protections for workers, including healthcare affordability, pension security, and debt collection reforms."

Ron Bieber, president of Michigan AFL-CIO, said in a December 2025 statement: "Today's ruling from the Court of Appeals is a declaration that the rule of law and state Constitution still matter in Michigan. Three judges, including two Republican appointees, took Speaker Hall to task, ruling that the stalled, pro-worker bills must be presented to the governor. Each day of delay causes real harm to working Michiganders. It's time for Speaker Hall to stop wasting taxpayer dollars, end his war on workers and present these bills to Governor Whitmer for her signature."

What's Next

The Michigan Supreme Court granted the House's appeal on Friday, scheduling oral arguments for May 2026. The court has not yet indicated which justices will hear the case or when the decision will be issued.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the House, the withheld bills would remain in limbo, never reaching Governor Whitmer's desk for signature. However, if the court upholds the Court of Appeals ruling, Speaker Hall would be legally required to present the bills to the governor, potentially resulting in their enactment into law.

The case has already drawn attention from legal scholars and civil liberties organizations, who view it as a test of whether state courts will enforce constitutional provisions against legislative bodies claiming to act in good faith.

Broader Context

This case is one of several constitutional challenges facing Michigan's Republican legislative leadership in recent months. In addition to the withheld bills dispute, the House has faced scrutiny over various policy decisions and procedural matters.

The Supreme Court's May oral arguments will provide clarity on whether legislative leaders have the authority to withhold legislation after a session concludes, and whether courts have the power to enforce constitutional mandates against legislative bodies.

The ruling could set important precedents for other states facing similar disputes and could impact how legislative bodies manage unfinished business after elections change control.

This article is based on court documents, statements from legislative leaders, and reporting from multiple sources including MLive.com, Michigan Advance, and the Michigan AFL-CIO.