Michigan House to state Supreme Court: Overturn decision on bills that never reached Whitmer 

A last-ditch appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court was filed Monday in the state Senate’s lawsuit against the House of Representatives, which sought court intervention over nine bills that never reached the governor’s desk after they passed the Senate at the end of the 2024 session.

The Court of Appeals in October ordered the Court of Claims to enter a writ of mandamus for the upper chamber in Michigan Senate v. Michigan House of Representatives. The lower court previously ruled that the House had an obligation to present the bills to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, even though the 2024 session was over, never ordered the House to do so because Court of Claims Judge Sima Patel worried about separation of powers constraints.

House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Township) has long held that the 2024 Legislature had the obligation to present the bills, which was under the leadership of a different House speaker and political party control, and that the obligation did not extend to his 2025 legislature and speakership.

Court of Appeals: Withheld Michigan House bills must be presented to the governor

State Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks (D-Grand Rapids) called foul and sued Hall and the House over the lack of movement on the bills after they were passed by the Senate but not presented for Whitmer’s signature.

After losing in the Court of Appeals, the House is asking the state’s high court, which has a 6-1 majority of justices appointed or nominated by Democrats, to settle the dispute.

In the request for leave to appeal filed Monday, the House again argued that the issues revolve around the validity of legislative actions, and how those actions could be negatively impacted by what it labeled as a bad call from the Court of Appeals.

“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. “It compounded that error when interpreting the constitutional text at issue to require the 103rd House to present bills passed by the 102nd Legislature. Last, it erred in the relief it ordered, by directing the Court of Claims to issue a writ of mandamus against the Legislature.”

The bills in question – House Bills 4177, 4665, 4666, 4667 [which passed in the lower chamber in 2023] and House Bills 4900, 4901, 5817, 5818 and 6058 [which were passed by the House in 2024] –  were passed by the Senate during a marathon lame duck session of the upper chamber at the tail end of 2024.

The House, then under Democratic control, was in a state of disarray when state Rep. Karen Whitsett (D-Detroit) joined a mutiny of sorts staged by Hall, who led a GOP walk out and locked up the lower chamber from passing any of the Senate’s bills in the final days of lame duck.

Michigan House adjourns after again failing to get a quorum, stranding legislative priorities

Undeterred, the Democratic-controlled Senate under Brinks pushed on and passed as many of the House bills as it could before the clock ran out on the 2024 term. That included the nine bills at the center of the current presentment battle.

When the Senate voted on the bills, it sent them back to the House to enroll them for presentation to the governor. The House under former Speaker Joe Tate (D-Detroit) and the House clerk did not complete that task before the end of the term and have never offered an explanation as to why.

That caused a legal controversy over whether the new House, under Hall’s leadership, had an inherent duty to present the bills – which passed both chambers – to Whitmer. Hall’s legal team said it did not have that duty, to which the Senate bristled.

Michigan Supreme Court orders lower court to decide stalled-bill deadlock

Patel ultimately ruled for both parties in a confusing decision. Patel’s ruling also landed on the separation of powers doctrine, noting the lower court did not have the authority to tell the legislative branch how to function.

Both sides claimed victory even though the ruling did not grant mandamus relief – or a specific order from the court compelling an elected official to fulfill their duties – and the bills were no closer to Whitmer’s desk and pen.

The House appealed to the Court of Appeals for greater clarity, to which the Senate filed a cross-appeal asking if the lower court had erred when it failed to grant mandamus relief.

In the opinion issued by the Court of Appeals, Judge Thomas Cameron wrote  that the House failed to show that the Senate lacked standing to bring the case. He also disagreed with the House in its assertion that the Senate’s legal challenge was unclear enough and unable to seek relief from the court.

Now it is up to the state’s high court to decide the matter and the fate of the bills at hand.

The court has not issued a decision on whether it would take up the matter. If it does, the court could decide the matter on the pleadings already filed with the court, or place the case on its upcoming oral arguments schedule to hear both sides in its own chambers. The court could decide not to hear the case at all, letting the Court of Appeals opinion stand if it takes no further action.