Article courtesy of MIRS for SBAM’s Lansing Watchdog newsletter
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer Friday vetoed the nine lame-duck passed bills withheld from her desk for 18 months, saying passage now would create “an insurmountable administrative burden” and unleash “endless litigation.”
Whitmer’s action came just hours after the Michigan Supreme Court declined to hear appeals from both the House and Senate, leaving intact a Court of Appeals ruling that House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Township) had a constitutional duty to present the bills to the governor.
The high court denied the appeal applications without explanation. Justice Brian Zahra, the lone Republican-nominated justice, dissented.
Whitmer blamed House Republicans for allowing the bills to languish while the constitutional dispute played out.
“House Republicans spent the last 18 months sitting on these bills, spending taxpayer dollars on costly lawsuits, and creating unnecessary uncertainty and preventing action on issues that matter to Michigan families,” Whitmer wrote in a veto letter. “These bills would have lowered costs for Michiganders and strengthened public safety. Had the House presented these bills to me in a timely manner, as the Constitution requires, today would have looked much different.”
In a statement, Hall offered his sympathies to the Democrats, saying “they went through all of this work just for the bills to end up vetoed.”
He noted: “I’m not sure why the House and Senate Democrats could not or would not do their jobs back in 2024, but I decided I would help them out today after they helped me pass a new state budget that’s smaller than last year and without any of their tax and fee increases.”
Sen. Winnie Brinks (D-Grand Rapids) said the Constitution prevailed and was worth celebrating. However, saying she’s “extremely disappointed” at the veto “is an understatement.”
“Unfortunately, quality policy that would lower costs and improve life for millions of Michiganders met an end at the governor’s desk,” she said. “… But I want to assure everyone that no matter the hurdle thrown at us, Senate Democrats will never give up the fight for the hardworking men and women who make our state great.”
MIRS learned Whitmer was partial to the bills that would have roped corrections officers into the state’s pension plan, and she’s hopeful the legislation will be presented again.
However, Whitmer said signing the measures now would create legal and practical problems because, under the Constitution, they would have taken effect on April 2, 2025 — more than 15 months ago.
Retroactive implementation, Whitmer said, would impose “an insurmountable administrative burden” on state government and affected residents, overwrite laws that have since taken effect, trigger “endless litigation,” miss statutory deadlines contained in several bills and create fiscal obligations spanning three budget years that were never incorporated into the newly enacted Fiscal Year 2027 budget.
Whitmer said she is prepared to work with lawmakers on new versions of the legislation.
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jocelyn Benson vowed to sign the bills if presented to her if she were governor.
“I’m tired of these political games. Teachers, nurses, corrections officers, and so many others spent years fighting for relief, only to have leaders they trusted pull the rug out from underneath them,” she said. “I look forward to signing these bills into law as governor. And I’ll take on anyone, no matter how rich or powerful, who stands in the way.”
How It Started
The court battle stemmed from Hall’s decision in January 2025 to halt processing of the final nine bills approved during the 2024 lame-duck session after he became speaker.
Hall argued the 103rd Legislature had no constitutional obligation to transmit bills approved by the previous Legislature and that the courts lacked authority to compel the House to act.
During oral arguments before the Supreme Court in May, House attorney Kyle Asher argued that the Court of Appeals incorrectly interpreted Article IV, Section 33 of the Michigan Constitution by concluding every bill passed by the Legislature must be presented to the governor regardless of when it is transmitted.
Senate attorney Mark Brewer countered that Hall’s position effectively gave the House speaker a legislative “pocket veto,” a power reserved exclusively for the governor.
Court of Claims Judge Sima Patel held the House had a constitutional duty to present the legislation, but she did not order Hall to forward the bills.
Friday’s Supreme Court order keeps in place the Michigan Court of Appeals’ October opinion that found the House had a constitutional obligation to present the bills.
The Supreme Court’s decision came without explanation, with Zahra dissenting as he believed the lower court failed to fully consider whether the dispute presented a nonjusticiable political question.
Zahra said the appeals court “breezed past” several issues for the simplest conclusion, and he held that the dispute raises significant constitutional questions about the separation of powers and the judiciary’s authority to intervene in legislative issues.
“Our Legislature, an equal branch of our state government, deserves this Court’s full consideration of the weighty issues presented in this matter,” Zahra wrote.
Zahra also cautioned that the lower court’s decision could create incentives for future political gamesmanship, allowing disputes over bill presentment to become a recurring feature.
The nine bills represented some of the highest-profile legislation approved during the final weeks of Democratic control of the Legislature, including allowing corrections officers to join the state retirement system, lifting the caps on how much money public employers can spend on workers’ healthcare benefits, help raising money for the Detroit Historical Museum and creating new protections for debtors going through bankruptcy.
Lawmakers, Others React to Order
Reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling was supportive, but it was quickly followed with disappointment upon Whitmer’s decision.
Michigan AFL-CIO President Ron Bieber thanked the court, Brinks, Senate Democrats and their attorney for defending the constitution.
Chandra Madafferi, the Michigan Education Association president and CEO, said Michigan residents waited 18 months for the House to “fulfill its constitutional responsibility,” and that during that time, educators and other public employees have experienced rising health insurance premiums.
However, Brandy Johnson, president of the Michigan Community College Association, welcomed the veto of HB 6058, which would have loosened the state’s “80/20” and hard-cap restrictions on public employee health insurance, allowing employers and labor unions greater flexibility to collectively bargain employee health care contributions.
“MCCA has consistently maintained that, while the bill’s underlying policy goals have merit, it would have imposed significant new costs on Michigan’s community colleges without providing the resources necessary for implementation,” she said.
“Community colleges are committed to supporting our employees while keeping higher education affordable and accessible for students. We look forward to continuing to work with the Governor and the Legislature on solutions that achieve these shared goals while ensuring colleges have the sustainable funding needed to serve their students and communities,” Johnson added.
Reps. Will Snyder (D-Muskegon), Kara Hope (D-Holt) and Amos O’Neal (D-Saginaw) praised the court’s decision, but Snyder called Whitmer’s veto a “disappointment.”
“She has always hesitated to take a supportive position, which could be why they were not transmitted to begin with,” Snyder said about Whitmer. “This is a tragic result for Michigan’s democracy and the people of Michigan.”
O’Neal, whose HB 4666 is among the nine, said his bill is “about doing right by the people who serve our communities and making sure Michigan’s criminal justice system works better for everyone.”
O’Neal’s bill gives eligible corrections officers a pathway to join the Michigan State Police Retirement System to help recruit and retain officers.
“Our responsibility is to serve the people who sent us here,” he said. “I’m grateful to the Supreme Court for upholding the law and ensuring the voice of the people is respected through our democratic process.”
Hope said she was “deeply disappointed” in the veto of HB 4900, which would have protected families by ensuring that a temporary financial setback did not mean losing a home, vehicle, work tools or medical devices.
“While I’m disappointed by the outcome for this legislation, Friday’s decision by the Michigan Supreme Court was absolutely the right one,” she said. “The court reaffirmed that no elected official, including Speaker Matt Hall, is above the constitution.”
In response to Friday’s news, Rep. Kelly Breen (D-Novi) said, “Congrats to the Governor and Speaker Hall. Together they’ve accomplished a rarely achieved feat: Uniting all legislative democrats.”
The other bills include HB 4177, HB 4665, HB 4667, HB 4901, HB 5817 and HB 5817 HB 5818.
Click here for more News & Resources.