Michigan Supreme Court Set to Hear Arguments Over Nine Stalled Bills From 2024 Legislative Session
By Michigan Capitol
April 3, 2026
The Michigan Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in May in a legal battle between the state Senate and House of Representatives over nine bills from the 2023-2024 legislative session that were never formally delivered to Governor Gretchen Whitmer.
The dispute centers on whether the current Republican-controlled House is obligated to complete administrative steps from a prior Legislature, a question with implications for how bills are processed when political control shifts between sessions.
Oral arguments are scheduled for May 6-7, 2026, following the Court's order granting a motion for immediate consideration in the case. Both sides have been given four weeks to submit supplemental briefs before the justices convene to hear their arguments.
The Nine Bills in Limbo
The nine stalled bills were passed at the end of the 2023-2024 legislative session when Democrats controlled both chambers of the Legislature and held a trifecta with Governor Whitmer's office. The legislation never reached the governor's desk and remains in legal limbo as House Republicans argue the bills should be considered dead.
The bills cover a range of policy areas affecting Michigan residents:
- Public employee health care premiums — legislation adjusting contributions for state and local government workers
- Retirement plans for corrections officers — proposals allowing corrections officers to opt into the Michigan State Police Pension Plus Plan instead of 401(k)-style retirement accounts
- Wage garnishment protections — measures protecting public assistance benefits from debt collection actions
- Wayne County-specific legislation — provisions affecting local government operations in Detroit's metropolitan area
The Legal History
The legal battle began in early 2025 when Senate Democrats filed suit after House Republicans refused to deliver the bills to Governor Whitmer. When Republicans took control of the House in January 2025, the party's legislative leadership argued it was too late to finish the business of the previous term.
The Michigan Court of Claims initially ruled in favor of the Senate, agreeing that the bills should have been sent to the governor. However, the court did little to enforce its ruling, declining to order the House to comply.
Judge Sima Patel wrote in her opinion 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 that clear ruling, the judge refused to order the House to forward the bills to the governor, citing concerns with separation of powers between the branches of government.
The Michigan Court of Appeals later reversed that stance, ruling in a 2-1 decision in late October 2026 that the lower court should have ordered the House to transmit the legislation. 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.
The appellate court 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 Appeal
House Republicans appealed that decision to the state Supreme Court in December, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in reaching the merits of the Senate's claims against the House.
"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.
The House argued it "compounded that error when interpreting the constitutional text at issue to require the 103rd House to present bills passed by the 102nd Legislature."
The House also claimed the appellate court erred in the relief it ordered by directing the Court of Claims to issue a writ of mandamus against the Legislature.
What's at Stake
The case has placed the issue at the center of a broader constitutional question: how far courts can go in directing the Legislature to carry out procedural duties.
Jeff Wiggins, spokesperson for House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Township), praised the Supreme Court's scheduling update as a significant victory for the House.
"This is a big win for the Michigan House of Representatives and the separation of powers. The Court of Appeals decision was incorrect and flawed, and everyone knows it," Wiggins said in an emailed statement.
"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 expressed confidence in their position as their lawyers continue to 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," reads the Senate's response to the House's request for an appeal.
"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."
Impact on Michigan Residents
For the nine specific bills at issue, the outcome could have direct consequences for Michigan residents and workers:
Corrections officers — The pension legislation would have allowed corrections officers to opt into the Michigan State Police Pension Plus Plan, providing a more stable retirement income than the current 401(k)-style plans. Many officers have been advocating for this change, citing staffing shortages and safety concerns.
Victor Deihl Jr., a corrections officer with 15 years on the job, expressed frustration about the stalled legislation.
"We've been told that there's been a bill sitting on Governor Whitmer's desk for two years now, and all she has to do is sign it, and we're still waiting," Deihl told CBS News Detroit.
Byron Osborn, president of the Michigan Corrections Organization, said offering pension options could help retain current corrections officers and attract new recruits.
"We thought we were on the right path with this pension legislation. Now, it's stuck in the courts, and it's very frustrating. Quite frankly, the citizens in the state should be irate," Osborn said.
Public employees — The health care premium adjustments would have affected state and local government workers across Michigan, potentially changing the costs associated with their health insurance coverage.
Public assistance recipients — Wage garnishment protections would have shielded those receiving public benefits from having their assistance taken to pay debts, a provision particularly important for low-income families.
The Supreme Court's Track Record
Michigan's Supreme Court currently has a 6-1 majority of justices appointed or nominated by Democrats. The Court has scheduled the case to be heard during its session set for May 6 and 7, 2026.
The justices will have to weigh competing interpretations of the state constitution and principles of separation of powers as they consider whether courts can compel legislative bodies to complete procedural steps from prior sessions.
What Happens Next
After oral arguments in May, the justices will have time to deliberate before issuing a ruling. The decision could:
- Affirm the Court of Appeals ruling and order the House to send the bills to Governor Whitmer
- Reverse the appellate court and allow the House to consider the bills dead
- Issue a compromise ruling that addresses the procedural question without fully resolving the merits
The outcome will have implications not just for these nine specific bills, but for how future legislative sessions handle unfinished business when political control shifts.
For now, Michigan residents waiting on the pension legislation and other proposals will continue to wait as the legal battle moves through the state's highest court.