LANSING, Mich. — A Michigan Court of Claims judge ruled Thursday that the Michigan House of Representatives is legally required to present nine bills from the previous legislative session to Governor Gretchen Whitmer for review. The ruling follows a legal battle initiated by the Michigan Senate over the delay in presenting the bills, which they claimed was a violation of the Michigan Constitution.
Last month, the Senate filed a lawsuit against Speaker of the House Matt Hall, House Clerk Scott Starr, and the Michigan House of Representatives, accusing them of deliberately withholding nine bills that had been passed by the Legislature. These bills had already been sent back by the Senate for the House to present to the governor. The Senate argued that the delay violated Article IV, Section 33 of the Michigan Constitution, which mandates that all passed legislation be presented to the governor in sufficient time for her review before it can take effect.
In response, the House argued that because these bills were passed by the previous Legislature, they were not required to present them. However, Judge Sima G. Patel of the Michigan Court of Claims disagreed with the House’s stance. Patel ruled that all bills passed by the Legislature, including those from a prior session, must be presented to the Governor for her review before the 14-day window required by the Constitution.
“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,” Judge Patel wrote in the ruling. However, she also stated that the court would not intervene in the legislative process, asserting that the presentation of bills is a function reserved for the Legislature itself.
Patel’s decision included a declaratory judgment, which clarifies the legal obligation of the House without imposing any penalties or requiring immediate action. While the ruling is binding, it does not necessitate the payment of damages or other immediate legal steps. The judgment simply affirms that the House must present the bills to the governor in accordance with the Michigan Constitution.
While Patel’s ruling was a victory for the Senate’s legal position, it was a setback for Speaker Matt Hall. In his statement, Hall criticized the Senate for suing him over what he described as a political disagreement. He maintained that the Senate could not force the House to present bills from a prior session, claiming the lawsuit was politically motivated.
“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,” Hall said. “For some reason, the Senate decided to sue me anyway. That decision was clearly politically motivated, completely unprecedented, and – as the Court agrees – illegal.”
Despite Hall’s criticism, House Minority Leader Ranjeev Puri called for immediate action. He emphasized the importance of the bills, which he said would benefit Michigan residents, including measures to lower health care costs and provide pension benefits for corrections and conservation officers. Puri urged Speaker Hall to comply with the court’s ruling.
“Holding these nine bills hostage came at the cost of Michigan taxpayers. The bills, if signed into law, would lower health care costs, add pension benefits for corrections and conservation officers, help financially protect struggling workers, and more,” Puri said. “I applaud the ruling today and call on Speaker Hall to comply with the court’s decision.”
The nine bills in question remain under the control of the Michigan House, and it is now up to the Speaker to present them to the governor for review, as required by the court’s judgment. While the case is a legal win for the Senate, the political tension between the two chambers remains high as lawmakers continue to navigate the process.
