Michigan Judge rules nine stalled bills should have been sent to Gov. Whitmer's desk
A Michigan judge ruled on Thursday that the state House had the legal requirement to send the nine stalled bills to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's desk, but the judge stopped at forcing the House to present them.
The ruling from Court of Claims Judge Sima Patel comes weeks after the state Senate filed a lawsuit against the House over the bills. At that time, Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks, D-Grand Rapids, said the Senate passed the bills and sent them back to the House to go to Whitmer on Dec. 20, 2024.
The lawsuit named House Speaker Matt Hall, R-Richland Township, accusing him of blocking the bills from being sent in January when he took office as speaker. In response, the House filed a countermotion, claiming that the decision to send the bills should fall on previous House Speaker Joe Tate.
Whitmer's office told CBS News Detroit in January that Tate enrolled nine bills to be sent to Whitmer, but they never reached her desk.
Patel wrote, "Simply put, all bills passed by the Legislature must be presented to the Governor within time to allow 14 days for the Governor's review prior to the first date that they could take effect— even those passed during a 'lame duck' session in an even year."
Patel wrote that both chambers apparently agreed the House was responsible for sending the bills because they originated there. House Clerk Scott Starr would have then been required to present the bills. However, Patel denied a permanent injunction to force the House to send the bills, adding that the injunction was "inappropriate" and that the court does not typically intervene in legislative proceedings or specify which person is responsible.
Brinks issued the following statement after the ruling:
"This case was clear as day. The most solemn and fundamental duty we have as legislators is to uphold the Constitution, and I am grateful to Judge Patel for making that abundantly clear with her decision today. I hope that this serves as a signal to any legislator who attempts to skirt the rules: we will hold you accountable to doing right by the people of Michigan. Let's now put this to bed and move forward with the work of the people – they're counting on us."
Hall also issued a statement, criticizing the Senate for naming him in the lawsuit. Before the lawsuit, Hall said he planned to consult with additional legal experts before taking action on the bills.
"I've been saying since the beginning that the Senate could not sue a Speaker of the House because of a political disagreement and that the Court could not force the House to present bills from a previous session.
"For some reason, the Senate decided to sue me anyway. That decision was clearly politically motivated, completely unprecedented, and – as the Court agrees – illegal. That was an embarrassing mistake by the Senate.
"I also appreciate the judge acknowledging the House is responsible for conducting its own business. We will include the judge's ruling into our ongoing thorough legal review of this situation."
The bills in question were House Bills 4177 and 4665-4667 of 2023 and House Bills 4900, 4901, 5817, 5818 and 6058 of 2024. The bills focused on allowing counties to establish a history museum authority and levy money from taxable property to support the authority. They also focused on the State Police Retirement Act and State Employees' Retirement Act; modifying the type and value of wages, money and property exempt from garnishment and execution; amending the Revised Judicature Act; and requiring employers to contribute to certain medical plans.
