Michigan Capitol | Susan J. Demas
A split Michigan Court of Appeals on Monday said the Republican-led House of Representatives had a clear duty to present nine Michigan House bills passed during last year’s lame duck session for Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s signature – even though the House failed to present those bills under different leadership before the term expired.
The 2-1 published opinion was written by Court of Appeals Judge Thomas Cameron and was joined by Judge Daniel Korobkin. Judge Christopher Murray dissented. A published opinion is binding on the lower courts and instructive to the Michigan Supreme Court, should the case be appealed.
It is unclear if the House plans to do so.
Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks (D-Grand Rapids), who led the chamber as the plaintiff in Michigan Senate v. Michigan House, said she was pleased with the decision and was happy to see the bills they worked hard to pass last year move closer to the finish line.
“At a time when Republican leaders across the country are breaking the law and getting away with it, this is a particularly meaningful win. No matter how deep our political differences, the Constitution must be followed,” Brinks said in a statement. “Skirting the law is bad enough, but it’s so much worse that they did it in the name of stopping bills that would have helped thousands of their constituents make ends meet.”
A message seeking comment from House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Township) was not returned at the time of publication.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
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.
Undeterred, the Democratic-controlled Senate under Brinks pushed on and passed as many of 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.
Brinks eventually filed a lawsuit with the Court of Claims, but Judge Sima 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 on Monday, 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.
Cameron further ruled that the Court of Claims did not commit a legal error when it ruled that the Article IV, Section 33 of the Michigan Constitution enshrines a duty for the Legislature to present all passed bills to the governor.
“The phrasing of this hypothetical indicates an understanding that, after a bill is adopted by both chambers, it becomes the ‘duty’ of the relevant member of the chamber in which the bill originated to present it to the governor,” Cameron wrote. “This understanding supports the interpretation advanced by plaintiffs and adopted by the Court of Claims.”
Cameron added that the mandatory duty was not-session dependent.
“The Legislature, as a whole, bears the duty of presentment. Additionally, the fact that the Constitution does not provide a deadline for presentment is not dispositive,” Cameron wrote. “The discourse at the 1961 Constitutional Convention suggests that presentment is the next, immediate step after a bill is passed by both chambers.”
To that end, Cameron ruled that the Court of Claims did commit a legal error when it failed to compel the House to present the bills, deferring to the separation of powers instead.
“While not phrased explicitly, we recognize that defendants raise separation-of-powers concerns with respect to the judiciary compelling legislative action in this case,” Cameron wrote. “As discussed earlier, [the Constitution] contains no language limiting the judiciary’s authority to interpret and enforce its mandates. Absent any such limitations, interpretation and enforcement of this constitutional provision, even in the context of governmental action, falls squarely within the scope of judicial authority.”
Murray said he concurred with the lead opinion in so far as the Legislature’s clear duty to present the bills to the governor. That said, Murray dissented by writing that although the Constitution provides a time period during which the Legislature must present enrolled bills to the governor, that time frame has passed, so there was no constitutional requirement for the bills to be presented now – nor was there any legal remedy that could be granted to the Senate.
The bills in dispute included crucial protections for workers and laborers, including health care affordability measures, pension security and debt collection reforms.
“Today’s ruling from the Court of Appeals is a declaration that the rule of law and state Constitution still matter in Michigan,” Ron Bieber, president of Michigan AFL-CIO, said in a statement. “Three judges, including two Republican appointees, took Speaker Hall to task, ruling that the stalled, pro-worker bills must be presented to the governor. Each day of delay causes real harm to working Michiganders. It’s time for Speaker Hall to stop wasting taxpayer dollars, end his war on workers and present these bills to Governor Whitmer for her signature.”
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
