Michigan Supreme Court to Hear Rare Lawsuit Between Legislative Chambers

Michigan’s most recent lame-duck legislature was quite active, with the state Senate passing dozens of bills in a 29-hour marathon session before the legislative session ended. While Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer ultimately signed most of this legislation into law, nine of the passed bills had not made it to her desk when the legislative session concluded. When a new Republican majority took control of the Michigan House in January, the House speaker blocked the bills from being presented to the governor, drawing anger — and eventually a lawsuit — from the state Senate, which remained controlled by the Democrats.

Arguments in that lawsuit between the legislative chambers, Michigan Senate v. Michigan House, will be heard by the Michigan Supreme Court in May. The case will determine whether all passed legislation must be presented to the governor. Or, instead, if one legislative chamber, or even one legislative leader, can block passed legislation from going to the governor — preventing it from becoming law. The answer will most immediately determine the fate of the nine bills at issue, including some pro-labor legislation supported by the Democrats and opposed by Republicans, but the Senate frames the case more broadly as being about the rule of law in Michigan.

At the heart of the case is the Michigan constitution’s provision establishing how a bill becomes a law. It provides: “Every bill passed by the legislature shall be presented to the governor before it becomes law, and the governor shall have 14 days measured in hours and minutes from the time of presentation in which to consider it.” The Senate and House disagree on whether this language creates a mandatory duty to present all passed legislation and, if so, whether courts can enforce such a duty.

The lower courts agreed with the Senate that the constitutional provision creates a duty to present passed legislation but reached different conclusions about the remedy. A state trial court held that the state constitution is “unequivocal” in creating a mandatory duty for the legislature to present passed legislation. However, it declined to order the House to do so, reasoning that determining which specific legislative officer must perform the presentation is governed by internal legislative rules, and “prudential concerns” weighed against judicial enforcement of such internal procedures.

An appellate court agreed that the state constitution creates a mandatory duty to present the bills. The panel acknowledged that the House’s interpretation of the constitutional provision has “arguable merit standing alone,” but found support for the Senate’s interpretation in discussions at the state’s 1961 constitutional convention. The panel also rejected the House’s argument that any mandatory duty to present applies only to the legislative session that passed the bills, finding no support for this interpretation in the constitutional text. Instead, the panel pointed to convention discussions showing that delegates understood it may take a few weeks to get a bill printed — potentially extending past the end of the legislative session — and that such bills would be presented to the governor “as soon as it is possible to do so.”

Turning to the question of remedy, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision not to enforce the duty to present. The panel reasoned that “it is beyond dispute” that the duty to present passed bills “falls to the legislature” and that “the only chamber . . . capable of presenting these particular bills is the House of Representatives, because the House of Representatives currently possesses them.” The appellate court also rejected separation-of-powers concerns, citing a landmark 2022 Michigan Supreme Court concerning remedies for constitutional rights — Bauserman v. Unemployment Insurance Agency — which held that constitutional rights “must be enforceable” to be “more than words on paper.”

The House has also raised procedural arguments, contending that the Senate lacks standing to sue the House and that the case presents a non-justiciable political question that courts should not decide. The lower courts rejected both arguments, but the Michigan Supreme Court will consider them.

Beyond the immediate question of whether the nine bills will be presented to the governor, the case has implications for Michigan’s constitutional structure. If the supreme court sides with the House, legislative leaders could gain significant power to block legislation that majorities in both chambers have voted to pass. If the court sides with the Senate, it would reinforce the principle from Bauserman that courts have authority to enforce constitutional requirements, even in the context of legislative action.

Michigan is not the first state to confront this issue. Disputes over whether legislatures must present passed legislation to governors have arisen in other states with similarly worded constitutional provisions. Courts in Nevada and Ohio have held that presentation is mandatory and have issued or endorsed writs of mandamus compelling presentation. Courts in Arizona and New York have also held that presentation is mandatory but cited unique circumstances in those cases as counseling against full relief. In Arizona, legislators committed to presenting the withheld legislation if they lost the lawsuit, eliminating a need for the court to issue a remedy; in New York, the challenged practice dated back more than a century, raising concerns about unintended consequences of retroactive relief. By contrast, the New Jersey Supreme Court has held that such disputes present a nonjusticiable political question.

The Michigan Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday, May 6 at 10:00 a.m. ET. The argument can be viewed here. The court could resolve the case with a formal opinion or simply deny the House’s appeal, leaving the appellate court’s decision in place.

Derek Clinger is a senior counsel for the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School.

Suggested Citation: Derek Clinger, Michigan Supreme Court to Hear Rare Lawsuit Between Legislative Chambers, Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (May. 1, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/michigan-supreme-court-hear-rare-lawsuit-between-legislative-chambers