The Michigan Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments over whether it should take up a lawsuit between the state Senate and House of Representatives.
The Senate sued the House last year when the House refused to deliver nine bills to the governor, even though they had passed both chambers during the 2023-2024 legislative session.
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.
When Republicans assumed control of the House for the current term 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 disagreed, but did little to enforce its ruling.
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,” Judge Sima Patel wrote in her opinion.
Despite that, she refused to order the House to forward the bills to the governor. She cited concerns with separation of powers between the branches of government as a reason.
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 is spokesperson for House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Twp).
“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,” Wiggins said in an emailed statement.
Meanwhile, Democratic Senate leadership says it’s looking forward to having its day before the court. That’s as its 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.
