Great Lakes Wire

A Michigan Court of Appeals panel has ruled that nine bills passed during the state legislature's lame duck session must be sent to Governor Gretchen Whitmer for her consideration. The decision, issued on October 27, clarifies that while the House has a constitutional obligation to present the bills, there is no specific time frame outlined for this process. As a result, the deadline for presentment may be determined at the discretion of the Court of Claims.

Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks (D-Grand Rapids), who filed the lawsuit against House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Township), commented on the ruling: “At a time when Republican leaders across the country are breaking the law and getting away with it, this is a particularly meaningful win.” She continued, “No matter how deep our political differences, the Constitution must be followed. 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.”

The legislation in question includes measures that would allow corrections officers to join the state retirement system, provide funding opportunities for the Detroit Historical Museum, and introduce new protections for individuals undergoing bankruptcy.

Appeals Judge Christopher M. Murray agreed with the majority that there is a “clear constitutional duty to present” these bills to Governor Whitmer. However, he noted that since the window for presenting them had closed, “there is no constitutionally available remedy for this particular violation.”

Brinks initiated legal action in February against Hall, alleging he was unlawfully preventing presentation of nine specific bills—HB 4177, HB 4665, HB 4666, HB 4667, HB 4900, HB 4901, HB 5817, HB 5818 and HB 6058—after their passage by both legislative chambers.

Court of Claims Judge Sima Patel previously determined that these bills should be delivered to Governor Whitmer but did not compel Hall to take action. Hall has maintained his position that completing business from a prior legislative session does not fall under responsibilities of current lawmakers—a stance he reaffirmed following Patel’s ruling. He also expressed regret that Senate Democrats did not address bill presentation during lame duck instead of seeking judicial intervention.

In writing for the majority opinion, Appeals Judge Thomas Cameron stated there are no limits within constitutional language regarding bill presentation that would restrict judicial interpretation or enforcement. Cameron emphasized: “the clear legal duty” to present these bills lies with both legislative chambers and asserted that failure by one chamber impedes fulfillment of duties by another.

Judge Daniel Korobkin joined Cameron’s opinion. Both were appointed by governors from different parties: Cameron by Republican Rick Snyder and Korobkin by Democrat Gretchen Whitmer.

Judge Murray questioned whether Governor Whitmer retains authority to veto or pocket veto these measures since they were not presented before new legislators took office on January 8.

Attorney Mark Brewer—representing Brinks—described the court's decision as a “tremendous victory for the rule of law in Michigan” and praised his client’s efforts.

Michigan AFL-CIO President Ron Bieber also welcomed the ruling: “Three judges, including two Republican appointees, took Speaker Hall to task, ruling that the stalled pro-worker bills must be presented to the governor.” Bieber added: “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.”

For more news and resources related to Michigan politics and legislation visit SBAM’s Lansing Watchdog newsletter website.