Nine Bills Stuck in Michigan Legislature Limbo as Supreme Court Hears Case Over House Refusal to Send Bills to Governor

Legislative Deadlock: Nine Bills Passed Last Session Remain Unsigned as Michigan Supreme Court Weighs House Challenge

LANSING — Nine bills that passed both chambers of the Michigan Legislature last year are still sitting on the Governor's desk, unsigned and unresolved. The Republican-led House of Representatives is refusing to send these bills to Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer to sign or veto, despite a court ruling ordering them to do so.

The Michigan Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments over this dispute, with oral arguments scheduled for May. The case involves legislation dealing with public employee health care premiums, retirement plans for corrections officers, and wage garnishment laws.

All nine bills were passed during the 2023-2024 legislative session when Democrats controlled both legislative chambers and the governor's office. When Republicans took control of the House in January 2025, the new majority refused to complete business from the prior session.

Bills Passed During Democratic Trifecta

The nine bills in question were passed when Michigan had a Democratic trifecta with Democratic control of the Senate, House, and governorship. The bills included:

• Legislation to cap health care premiums for public employees
• Retirement plan changes for corrections officers
• Wage garnishment law reforms

These measures were designed to protect public sector workers and address concerns about the rising cost of health care and retirement benefits for state employees.

House Leadership Rejects Prior Session Business

House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Twp) has defended the House's position, arguing that no Legislature should be bound by the actions of a prior Legislature.

"This is a big win for the Michigan House of Representatives and the separation of powers," Wiggins said. 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.

Democratic Senate Pushes for Resolution

Democratic Senate leadership has filed legal briefs arguing against the House's appeal. The Senate is looking forward to having its day before the court, according to Democratic sources.

The Senate's response to the House's appeal reads: 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.

Court of Appeals Ordered House to Forward Bills

The Michigan Court of Claims initially ruled in favor of the Senate, finding that the House had a constitutional duty to forward the bills to the governor. Judge Sima Patel wrote in her opinion that 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.

Despite this ruling, Judge Patel refused to order the House to forward the bills, citing concerns with separation of powers between the branches of government.

Court of Appeals Agreed with Senate

The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's decision on the substantive issue, finding that the bills should have been sent to the governor. However, the appeals court did little to enforce its ruling initially.

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.

What This Means for Michigan Residents

The legislative stalemate has real consequences for Michigan families. The nine bills would have provided relief to public sector workers across the state, including:

• Lower health care costs for teachers, police officers, firefighters, and other public employees
• Better retirement security for corrections officers and other state workers
• Clearer rules for wage garnishment that affects workers in various industries

Without these protections, Michigan workers continue to face rising costs for essential services.

Supreme Court Hearing Scheduled for May

The Michigan Supreme Court has set a May date to hear arguments on the case. The justices will examine whether the House has the right to refuse to complete legislative business from a prior session, and whether a court can compel the House to take action.

Separation of Powers at Stake

Both sides of the dispute argue their position is grounded in the separation of powers doctrine. The House argues that the people have a right to elect a new Legislature each term and that the new Legislature should not be bound by the decisions of the prior Legislature.

The Senate argues that once the Legislature passes a bill and it reaches the governor's desk, the legislative process is complete and the executive branch must act on it, regardless of which party controls the Legislature.

What Comes Next

Michigan residents will have to wait until May to see what the Supreme Court decides. The outcome will determine whether these nine bills finally reach the governor's signature or remain in legislative limbo indefinitely.

The decision will also set a precedent for how Michigan handles legislative business when party control changes. Future Legislatures will look to this case for guidance on whether they can refuse to complete the work of the prior session.

Michigan Public Report

Michigan Public journalist Colin Jackson has reported extensively on this story, providing detailed coverage of the legal arguments and political implications. The story highlights the complexity of the issue and the stakes involved for Michigan workers and families.

The Michigan Supreme Court hearing will be a significant moment for Michigan politics, with implications that extend beyond the nine specific bills involved. The decision could reshape how the state handles legislative transitions when party control changes.