Michigan’s recent lame-duck legislative session was very active, with the state Senate passing dozens of bills in a marathon 29-hour session before the legislative session adjourned. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer ultimately signed most of the bills into law, but nine of the bills that passed did not reach her desk at the end of the legislative session. When Republicans gained a new majority in the Michigan House of Representatives in January, the speaker blocked the bill from being sent to the governor, angering the state Senate, which still held a Democratic majority, and ultimately leading to a lawsuit.
Discussions in litigation between legislative chambers; Michigan Senate vs. Michigan House of Representatives, The case is scheduled to be heard by the Michigan Supreme Court in May. The lawsuit will determine whether all passed bills must be sent to the governor. Alternatively, one legislative chamber, or one legislative leader, can block a passed bill from being sent to the governor and prevent it from becoming law. The answer will immediately decide the fate of the nine bills at issue, including some pro-labor bills supported by Democrats and opposed by Republicans, but the Senate sees the case more broadly as about the rule of law in Michigan.
At the heart of the lawsuit is a provision in the Michigan Constitution that governs how a bill becomes law. That provision provides that “Every bill passed by the Legislature shall be submitted to the Governor before becoming law, and the Governor shall have a period of fourteen days for consideration, measured in hours and minutes from the time of submission.” The House and Senate disagree on whether this language imposes a requirement to present all bills passed and, if so, whether courts can enforce such a requirement.
Lower courts agreed with the Senate that constitutional provisions create a duty to introduce passed legislation, but reached different conclusions about remedies. A state trial court ruled that the state constitution is “unambiguous” in creating a duty to submit passed laws to Congress. However, Congress declined to order the House to do so on the grounds that the determination of which particular legislative staff must make the presentation is governed by internal legislative rules and that “prudent concerns” weigh against the judicial enforcement of such internal proceedings.
The appeals court agreed that the state constitution provides a requirement to introduce the bill. Although the committee acknowledged that the House’s interpretation of the constitutional provision was “singularly debatable,” debate at the 1961 state constitutional convention found that the Senate’s interpretation was supported. The committee also rejected the House’s argument that the filing requirement applied only to the Congress that passed the bill, finding no support for this interpretation in the constitutional text. Instead, the committee pointed to discussions at the convention that indicated delegates understood that printing a bill could take several weeks (possibly extending beyond the end of the legislative session) and that such a bill would be submitted to the governor “as soon as practicable.”
Turning to the issue of relief, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision not to enforce the filing requirement. The committee argued that it was “undisputed” that “the duty rests with the Legislature” to introduce passed legislation, and that “the only chamber that can introduce these particular bills is the House of Representatives, because it currently owns the bills.” The appeals court also rejected separation of powers concerns, citing a landmark 2022 Michigan Supreme Court decision regarding constitutional rights remedies. Bauserman v. Unemployment Insurance Administration -He argued that in order for constitutional rights to be “more than words on paper,” they “must be enforceable.”
The House has also raised procedural arguments, arguing that the Senate lacks standing to sue the House and that the case presents an unfair political question that the courts should not decide. Lower courts have rejected both arguments, but the Michigan Supreme Court will consider them.
Beyond the immediate question of whether the nine bills will be sent to the governor, the case also has implications for Michigan’s constitutional structure. If the Supreme Court sides with the House, legislative leaders could have greater power to block bills passed by majorities in both chambers. If the court sided with the Senate, that principle would be strengthened. Bauserman Courts have the power to enforce constitutional requirements, even in the context of legislative action.
Michigan is not the first state to face this problem. In other states with similarly worded constitutional provisions, disputes have arisen over whether the Legislature must send passed bills to the governor. Courts in Nevada and Ohio have determined that filing is mandatory and have issued or approved writs of mandatory filing. Courts in Arizona and New York also held that presentation is required, but cited the unique circumstances of those cases as counseling against full relief. In Arizona, lawmakers have pledged to introduce a pending bill if they lose a lawsuit, eliminating the need for courts to issue relief. In New York, this problematic practice dates back more than a century and raised concerns about the unintended consequences of retroactive relief. In contrast, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that such disputes presented unfair political questions.
The Michigan Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday, May 6 at 10 a.m. ET. The discussion can be seen here. The court can resolve the case with a formal opinion or simply dismiss the House’s appeal and leave the appellate court’s decision in place.
Derek Klinger is a senior advisor to the federal government. National Democracy Research Initiative At the University of Wisconsin School of Law.
Recommended citation: Derek Klinger, Michigan Supreme Court hears rare case 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
