Michigan Supreme Court Agrees to Review Senate v. House Lawsuit Over Unfinished Bills
The Michigan Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in a high-stakes lawsuit between the state Senate and House of Representatives over nine bills that passed both chambers during the 2023-2024 legislative session but were never sent to the governor for signature.
The Michigan Supreme Court has set a May date to hear arguments on whether it should take up the case. This development marks a significant escalation in an inter-branch dispute that has already been litigated through the Michigan Court of Claims and Court of Appeals.
The Stalled Bills
The nine bills in question cover public employee health care premiums, retirement plans for corrections officers, and wage garnishment rules. They were all passed during the 2023-2024 legislative session when Democrats held control of both chambers of the Legislature and the governor's office.
When Republicans assumed control of the House in January 2025, the Republican legislative leadership argued it was too late to finish the business of the previous term. This position led the Senate to file suit against the House.
Lower Court Rulings
The Michigan Court of Claims ruled in favor of the Senate, determining that the state constitution requires bills to be sent to the governor regardless of which Legislature passed them. Judge Sima Patel wrote that the constitutional 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 this ruling, the Court of Claims did little to enforce its decision. The Michigan Court of Appeals later agreed that the bills should have been sent to the governor but found the lower court erred by refusing to issue an order compelling the House to comply. The Court of Appeals sent the case back to the lower court with directions to order the House to forward the bills.
Supreme Court Appeal
The House has now appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, arguing that no Legislature can bind the next Legislature and that courts cannot hold newly elected representatives responsible for the inaction of their predecessors.
Jeff Wiggins, spokesperson for House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Twp), called the Supreme Court's decision to hear the case "a big win for the Michigan House of Representatives and the separation of powers."
"This is a big win for the Michigan House of Representatives and the separation of powers," Wiggins said in a 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."
Meanwhile, Democratic Senate leadership has filed briefs arguing against the appeal, maintaining that the Court of Appeals decision follows established legal precedent and does not conflict with prior Michigan Supreme Court decisions.
"A big win for the Michigan House of Representatives and the separation of powers," Wiggins said.
What's at Stake
The nine bills represent policy priorities from the Democratic-controlled Legislature of 2023-2024. Whether they eventually reach the governor's desk depends on how the Michigan Supreme Court rules on this appeal and whether the House complies with any resulting order.
If the Supreme Court ultimately agrees with the House's position, the bills would remain stalled indefinitely. If it sides with the Senate, the House would be legally compelled to send them to Governor Gretchen Whitmer for her consideration.
The case highlights ongoing tensions between Michigan's legislative branches and raises questions about how state government handles unfinished business when control of the Legislature changes hands.
The Supreme Court Timeline
The Michigan Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for a date in May 2026. A written decision is expected to follow several weeks later, pending the justices' review and deliberation.
The Supreme Court's ruling could set important precedent for how Michigan courts handle inter-branch disputes and how legislative business is treated when political control shifts between election cycles.