Michigan Supreme Court to Hear Dispute Over Stalled Bills Passed During Prior Democratic Session

Michigan's Supreme Court has agreed to hear a constitutional challenge over whether nine bills passed during the 2023-2024 legislative session must be delivered to Governor Gretchen Whitmer.

The case pits Senate Democrats against House Republicans in a battle over legislative procedure and separation of powers that could reshape how Michigan handles unfinished business between legislative terms.

Bills Left Behind

The nine bills passed during the last legislative session deal with public employee health care premiums, retirement plans for corrections officers, and wage garnishment protections. They were all approved when Democrats controlled both chambers of the Legislature and held the governorship.

When Republicans assumed control of the House in January 2025, legislative leadership argued the bills should remain in limbo. The House refused to deliver the legislation to the governor for signature or veto.

Legal Battle Escalates

Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks, D-Grand Rapids, filed suit in early 2025 when the House balked at delivering the bills.

A Court of Claims judge initially agreed the bills should have been sent to Whitmer. Judge Sima Patel wrote 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 her ruling, the judge declined to order the House to forward the bills. She cited separation of powers concerns.

The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed that decision, ruling the lower court should have ordered the House to transmit the legislation.

Now the Supreme Court has set a May date to hear oral arguments on whether to take up the appeal.

House Pushes Back

House Speaker Matt Hall, R-Richland Township, welcomed the Supreme Court's decision to hear the case.

This is a big win for the Michigan House of Representatives and the separation of powers, said Jeff Wiggins, spokesperson for the House. 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.

Democrats Maintain Position

Democratic Senate leadership argues presenting passed bills to the governor is routine procedure, not a policy decision that should change with leadership transitions.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is not clearly erroneous and does not conflict with prior 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.

What Stakes Are Involved

The nine stalled bills would have increased public employee health care contributions, expanded retirement options for certain law enforcement personnel, and provided protections for public assistance benefits from wage garnishment.

The dispute raises broader constitutional questions about how far courts can direct the Legislature to complete administrative duties from prior terms.

Supreme Court justices now must decide whether to take up a case that could determine the scope of judicial power over legislative process and whether one Legislature can obligate its successor.