By Liz Nass
Gongwer New Service
The law allowing House Republicans to unilaterally disapprove $645 million in work project funds is unconstitutional, Attorney General Dana Nessel said in a formal opinion released Wednesday, prompting House Speaker Matt Hall to threaten litigation.
Hall, R-Richland Township, is vowing to challenge the opinion, which is binding on state agencies unless overturned by the courts. Senate and House Democrats, however, praised Nessel’s opinion, calling the previous cuts “heinous” and “reckless.”
Nessel’s office said they are confident in the grounds of the conclusion in the face of a possible lawsuit.
In an email to state agency budget heads sent shortly after the opinion’s release, State Budget Office Deputy Director Kyle Guerrant said the SBO agreed with the opinion issued by Nessel.
Guerrant said the work projects that were blocked by the House Appropriations Committee vote have been activated to allow departments to begin spending.
Following a request from Sen. Sarah Anthony, D-Lansing, to review the disapprovals through the Management and Budget Act, Nessel said in her formal opinion that the mechanism violates the Separation of Powers and Bicameralism and Presentment requirements in the Michigan Constitution.
The opinion says the only way the Legislature could influence the appropriation of funds is through enacting new legislation.
She said the law “impermissibly” allows a legislative committee to control the executive’s implementation of already enacted laws, saying the law gives the disapproval statutory authorization but does not align with the Constitution.
Nessel’s opinion says the law extends legislative authority into the constitutional domain of the executive office erroneously.
Hall said Nessel’s decision was clearly political, and if this law is in part thrown out, “Democrats will build their slush funds without any oversight.”
“Incoherent legal theories like this are the reason we have the $5 billion of waste, fraud, and abuse in state government,” Hall said in a statement. “But she has no problem ignoring the law to push welfare for illegal aliens and radical DEI programs, and Michigan taxpayers are going to pay the price.”
House Republicans declined to answer questions on what the process to sue Nessel would look like.
Danny Wimmer, press secretary for Nessel, said Nessel is “confident in the legal analysis and conclusions reached in her opinion and believes the courts will agree.”
The opinion said the House Appropriations Committee vote amounted to a “committee veto,” and does not comply with action needing approval from both legislative chambers as well as the governor, except in narrow circumstances outlined in the Constitution, like when reductions in spending are required if revenues fall below estimates.
“By empowering a single legislative committee to negate the state budget director’s work-project designations, the statute reserves the very administrative control that the separation of powers forbids,” Nessel wrote in her opinion. “This disapproval mechanism effectively creates a ‘legislative veto’ – or, more accurately, a ‘legislative committee veto.’ This comprises an unconstitutional reservation of administrative control that interferes with the executive branch’s core function of executing the laws. Under Article 3, (section) 2, when an appropriation is enacted, the Legislature’s role ends, and the executive branch’s duty to faithfully execute the law begins.”
She said this mechanism is severable from the rest of the budget act. She called for the remaining portion of the statute, including State Budget Office authority to designate projects and reporting requirements, to remain intact and enforceable.
Nessel also released a video on her decision.
House Appropriations Committee Chair Rep. Ann Bollin, R-Brighton, claimed Nessel’s opinion was “wrong on the facts,” and felt “more like a political defense of Democrats’ pet projects than an objective legal analysis.”
She said the committee acted within its legal authority on a statute enacted in the 1980s allowing for disapproval, saying the authority was not new.
“What is new is Democrats’ frustration that the days of unchecked slush funds and blank checks are coming to an end,” Bollin said in a statement. “This opinion comes from an attorney general who has never voted on a budget, never analyzed a state budget, and now appears perfectly comfortable defending a system where hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars were shuffled through vague work projects with little oversight and no accountability. That is not how responsible government works, and it is not what Michigan taxpayers expect.”
Rep. Matt Maddock, R-Milford, majority vice chair of the Appropriations Committee, called the opinion “fan fiction” that was built on the false premise “that controlling where unspent money goes is the same thing as running a program.”
Maddock claimed the cases used in the opinion are not applicable to the disapprovals, and should not be considered a legislative veto like the opinion says.
“Under Nessel's trashy zine, the governor alone decides when taxpayer money stops being subject to legislative control,” Maddock said in a statement. “That is not separation of powers. It is a theft of appropriations and the process from the people’s elected representatives to the governor.”
The provision of the law has rarely been used and certainly not to the degree House Republicans utilized it in December.
Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks, D-Grand Rapids, said the choice to “steal money” from Michiganders was now not only “heinous,” but also unconstitutional.
“There’s no surprise here – when they can’t win in the Capitol, they try to bend the rules or break the law, hoping no one notices,” Brinks said in a statement. “But this time, people noticed. Pregnant and new moms who were counting on financial support noticed. Folks trying to combat the opioid epidemic noticed. And advocates for child abuse victims and those who help feed Michigan’s seniors noticed. I hope the thousands of people who reached out in distress over the past month can breathe a little easier, knowing that this will not stand. This group of Republican legislators is unscrupulous, and everyone should demand better.”
The decision from Nessel was a “lifeline” for these programs that have been left in limbo for weeks, Anthony said, including Head Start programs, county land banks’ affordable housing projects and schools.
“This opinion makes one thing clear: when you strip away the political theater and headlines, House Republicans don’t have a leg to stand on,” Anthony said in a statement. “Their reckless decision to block funding to these essential programs was not only ruthless, it was also unconstitutional.”
House Minority Leader Ranjeev Puri, D-Canton Township, said in a statement that the Democrats have been fighting back since the weaponization of the rare provision, saying it created both “uncertainty and chaos” in the “unprecedented and completely unwarranted” move.
“Republicans were so desperate to try and claim a win after a year of failures — an overdue budget, an inability to pass meaningful legislation to lower costs for working Michiganders, and the cowardice of party members who can’t actually protect their communities from their showboating leader — they took a chainsaw to funding that had already been promised to communities and organizations across the state,” Puri said. “Even more ridiculous, they tried to call jeopardizing trust in state government ‘eliminating waste.’”
Gongwer New Service
The law allowing House Republicans to unilaterally disapprove $645 million in work project funds is unconstitutional, Attorney General Dana Nessel said in a formal opinion released Wednesday, prompting House Speaker Matt Hall to threaten litigation.
Hall, R-Richland Township, is vowing to challenge the opinion, which is binding on state agencies unless overturned by the courts. Senate and House Democrats, however, praised Nessel’s opinion, calling the previous cuts “heinous” and “reckless.”
Nessel’s office said they are confident in the grounds of the conclusion in the face of a possible lawsuit.
In an email to state agency budget heads sent shortly after the opinion’s release, State Budget Office Deputy Director Kyle Guerrant said the SBO agreed with the opinion issued by Nessel.
Guerrant said the work projects that were blocked by the House Appropriations Committee vote have been activated to allow departments to begin spending.
Following a request from Sen. Sarah Anthony, D-Lansing, to review the disapprovals through the Management and Budget Act, Nessel said in her formal opinion that the mechanism violates the Separation of Powers and Bicameralism and Presentment requirements in the Michigan Constitution.
The opinion says the only way the Legislature could influence the appropriation of funds is through enacting new legislation.
She said the law “impermissibly” allows a legislative committee to control the executive’s implementation of already enacted laws, saying the law gives the disapproval statutory authorization but does not align with the Constitution.
Nessel’s opinion says the law extends legislative authority into the constitutional domain of the executive office erroneously.
Hall said Nessel’s decision was clearly political, and if this law is in part thrown out, “Democrats will build their slush funds without any oversight.”
“Incoherent legal theories like this are the reason we have the $5 billion of waste, fraud, and abuse in state government,” Hall said in a statement. “But she has no problem ignoring the law to push welfare for illegal aliens and radical DEI programs, and Michigan taxpayers are going to pay the price.”
House Republicans declined to answer questions on what the process to sue Nessel would look like.
Danny Wimmer, press secretary for Nessel, said Nessel is “confident in the legal analysis and conclusions reached in her opinion and believes the courts will agree.”
The opinion said the House Appropriations Committee vote amounted to a “committee veto,” and does not comply with action needing approval from both legislative chambers as well as the governor, except in narrow circumstances outlined in the Constitution, like when reductions in spending are required if revenues fall below estimates.
“By empowering a single legislative committee to negate the state budget director’s work-project designations, the statute reserves the very administrative control that the separation of powers forbids,” Nessel wrote in her opinion. “This disapproval mechanism effectively creates a ‘legislative veto’ – or, more accurately, a ‘legislative committee veto.’ This comprises an unconstitutional reservation of administrative control that interferes with the executive branch’s core function of executing the laws. Under Article 3, (section) 2, when an appropriation is enacted, the Legislature’s role ends, and the executive branch’s duty to faithfully execute the law begins.”
She said this mechanism is severable from the rest of the budget act. She called for the remaining portion of the statute, including State Budget Office authority to designate projects and reporting requirements, to remain intact and enforceable.
Nessel also released a video on her decision.
House Appropriations Committee Chair Rep. Ann Bollin, R-Brighton, claimed Nessel’s opinion was “wrong on the facts,” and felt “more like a political defense of Democrats’ pet projects than an objective legal analysis.”
She said the committee acted within its legal authority on a statute enacted in the 1980s allowing for disapproval, saying the authority was not new.
“What is new is Democrats’ frustration that the days of unchecked slush funds and blank checks are coming to an end,” Bollin said in a statement. “This opinion comes from an attorney general who has never voted on a budget, never analyzed a state budget, and now appears perfectly comfortable defending a system where hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars were shuffled through vague work projects with little oversight and no accountability. That is not how responsible government works, and it is not what Michigan taxpayers expect.”
Rep. Matt Maddock, R-Milford, majority vice chair of the Appropriations Committee, called the opinion “fan fiction” that was built on the false premise “that controlling where unspent money goes is the same thing as running a program.”
Maddock claimed the cases used in the opinion are not applicable to the disapprovals, and should not be considered a legislative veto like the opinion says.
“Under Nessel's trashy zine, the governor alone decides when taxpayer money stops being subject to legislative control,” Maddock said in a statement. “That is not separation of powers. It is a theft of appropriations and the process from the people’s elected representatives to the governor.”
The provision of the law has rarely been used and certainly not to the degree House Republicans utilized it in December.
Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks, D-Grand Rapids, said the choice to “steal money” from Michiganders was now not only “heinous,” but also unconstitutional.
“There’s no surprise here – when they can’t win in the Capitol, they try to bend the rules or break the law, hoping no one notices,” Brinks said in a statement. “But this time, people noticed. Pregnant and new moms who were counting on financial support noticed. Folks trying to combat the opioid epidemic noticed. And advocates for child abuse victims and those who help feed Michigan’s seniors noticed. I hope the thousands of people who reached out in distress over the past month can breathe a little easier, knowing that this will not stand. This group of Republican legislators is unscrupulous, and everyone should demand better.”
The decision from Nessel was a “lifeline” for these programs that have been left in limbo for weeks, Anthony said, including Head Start programs, county land banks’ affordable housing projects and schools.
“This opinion makes one thing clear: when you strip away the political theater and headlines, House Republicans don’t have a leg to stand on,” Anthony said in a statement. “Their reckless decision to block funding to these essential programs was not only ruthless, it was also unconstitutional.”
House Minority Leader Ranjeev Puri, D-Canton Township, said in a statement that the Democrats have been fighting back since the weaponization of the rare provision, saying it created both “uncertainty and chaos” in the “unprecedented and completely unwarranted” move.
“Republicans were so desperate to try and claim a win after a year of failures — an overdue budget, an inability to pass meaningful legislation to lower costs for working Michiganders, and the cowardice of party members who can’t actually protect their communities from their showboating leader — they took a chainsaw to funding that had already been promised to communities and organizations across the state,” Puri said. “Even more ridiculous, they tried to call jeopardizing trust in state government ‘eliminating waste.’”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
