Michigan Supreme Court to Hear Arguments in Senate v. House Stalled Bills Dispute
The Michigan Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in a high-profile constitutional dispute between the state Senate and House of Representatives over nine bills that passed during the 2023-2024 legislative session but never reached the governor's desk.
The Senate sued the House last year when House Republicans refused to deliver nine bills to Governor Gretchen Whitmer, arguing that it was too late to finish the business of the previous legislative term after Republicans assumed control of the House in January 2025.
The 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.
The Michigan Constitution's language regarding bills passed by the Legislature is mandatory and leaves no room for exceptions, according to Judge Sima Patel. Notably, there is no exception for bills passed by a prior Legislature, she wrote in her opinion. Despite that, she refused to order the House to forward the bills to the governor, citing concerns with separation of powers between the branches of government.
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. The Republican-led House is praising the scheduling update.
Jeff Wiggins, spokesperson for House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Township), said in an emailed statement: "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. 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 says it is looking forward to having its day before the court. Senate 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.
The case has drawn attention from legal scholars and political observers who say it raises important questions about the Michigan Constitution's text regarding bills passed during a legislative session and whether those bills must be forwarded to the governor even if control of the Legislature changes.
The nine bills remain in legislative limbo at the state Capitol, with their fate now resting in the hands of Michigan's highest court.