By Elena Durnbaugh
Gongwer News Service
House Republicans filed a lawsuit Friday contesting Attorney General Dana Nessel’s opinion that the law allowing House Republicans to unilaterally disapprove $645 million in work project funds is unconstitutional.
The lawsuit – House v. Department of Technology, Management and Budget, et. al. (COC Docket No. 26-000007) requests immediate relief to prevent multiple departments from sending out the $645 million in funds disapproved by the House Appropriations Committee in December 2025.
Judge Michael Gadola was assigned to the case.
“It is clear Democrats rigged this whole process to stop House Republicans’ fight to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in our budgets and go around the thing they hate the most– the Hall Ethics, Accountability, and Transparency plan (HEAT),” Hall said in a statement. “While the Democrat politicians and Lansing insiders fight for more wasteful spending, we’re suing to fight to protect the hard-earned dollars of Michigan families and taxpayers.”
The House is also asking the court to enter a temporary restraining order and grant a preliminary injunction to prevent the money from being sent out while the overall questions are considered by the court.
“Whatever administrative inconvenience defendants might suffer from a pause in spending is trivial compared to the irreparable injury to the constitutional structure and the public treasury that would result from permitting the executive to bypass the Legislature entirely,” the House argues.
The lawsuit argued that the House Appropriations Committee’s disapprovals have firm constitutional grounding and do not violate Michigan’s separation of powers doctrine, as stated by the attorney general’s opinion.
The House also argued that the committee action on behalf of the Legislature does not violate the Michigan Constitution’s bicameralism and presentment requirements because the committee’s actions were not legislative in nature and did not involve determinations of policy.
“The committee neither conducted debate nor took testimony before voting to disapprove the work projects proposals. … Indeed, a significant portion of the public criticism of the committee’s action was that it was done with ‘zero discussion’ and ‘no public comment or debate among appropriations members,’” the lawsuit said.
Citing a previous Supreme Court ruling in Blank v. Department of Corrections, the lawsuit argues that the lack of discussion or debate supports the committee was not making a policy decision and therefore was not taking legislative action requiring bicameral approval and presentment.
The House attorneys said if the mechanism that allows the House Appropriations Committee to disapprove work projects is unconstitutional, then the entire law, which also allows the State Budget Office to designate work projects, is unconstitutional.
“Even if the attorney general were correct that the legislative check is unconstitutional, the executive cannot simply sever the condition while retaining the power it was meant to restrain,” the lawsuit says.
“Without the legislative power to disapprove, the director has no authority to extend these appropriations at all, and the funds must undeniably lapse by operation of law.”
Additionally, the House Republicans said the state acted too quickly to spend the funds after Attorney General Dana Nessel issued her opinion.
“Time is of the essence. The State Budget Office’s ‘activation’ is the electronic equivalent of unlocking the vault,” the House argued in its motion for a temporary restraining order. “Departments are now free to encumber and spend these funds immediately. There is no waiting period. There is no further administrative hurdle. Absent a temporary restraining order, the status quo will be shattered, and hundreds of millions of dollars could flow out of the Treasury before a preliminary injunction hearing can even be scheduled.”
Separate from the lawsuit, House Republicans raised concerns about how Nessel defined work projects in her opinion, saying it calls into question either the validity of some work projects or Nessel’s opinion.
In her opinion, Nessel discusses work projects designation as it relates to the constitutionality of the law the House Appropriations Committee used to disapprove the funding.
She states that after an appropriation is enacted, the Legislature’s role ends, and it’s the executive branch’s duty to execute that appropriation. Nessel goes on to say that whether the executive branch faithfully executed the law consistent with legislative intent regarding work projects depends on the purpose of the funds, not how long the funds are available.
“A work-project designation does not change what the funds are spent on; it affects only how long they remain available to be spent for that legislatively determined purpose. In other words, the purpose remains fixed by the original appropriation,” Nessel said.
This is where House Republicans are raising a red flag on the opinion.
“The attorney general’s opinion ignores the plain facts in front of us,” Bollin said in a statement on Thursday. “The work project request submitted by the State Budget Office did not simply extend timelines. They repeatedly changed the purpose of the funding that the Legislature had approved.”
An example Republicans pointed to was funding within the Department of Corrections. The work project request asks that unspent money, which was originally appropriated for operations, be turned over into a work project to be used for infrastructure projects.
“That directly contradicts the claim that work projects only affect availability, not use,” Bollin said.
House Republicans also point to other examples within the Department of Treasury and the Department of Technology, Management and Budget, where funds are shifted from departmental operations to infrastructure or IT projects.
The Citizens Research Council of Michigan published a report examining the work projects process shortly after the House Appropriations Committee disapproved the funding last year, which gives weight to the concerns House Republicans have raised about the process, namely, as it relates to the Legislature’s duty to review and approve the money as an act of Legislative oversight.
“Work project designations are not simply a perfunctory administrative action taken by the executive branch. They represent new appropriation authorization that extends the life of what is otherwise a single-year appropriation that, under law, needs to lapse at the close of the relevant fiscal year,” the report said. “The legislature needs to have a role in approving or disapproving the executive branch’s proposals in the same way it has the critical responsibility for reviewing the Governor’s full budget proposals each year.”
The attorney general’s office decline to comment specifically on the questions House Republicans raised about the opinion.
“The attorney general is confident in the legal analysis and conclusions reached in her opinion and believes the courts will agree,” said Kim Bush, spokesperson for the attorney general’s office.
Gongwer News Service
House Republicans filed a lawsuit Friday contesting Attorney General Dana Nessel’s opinion that the law allowing House Republicans to unilaterally disapprove $645 million in work project funds is unconstitutional.
The lawsuit – House v. Department of Technology, Management and Budget, et. al. (COC Docket No. 26-000007) requests immediate relief to prevent multiple departments from sending out the $645 million in funds disapproved by the House Appropriations Committee in December 2025.
Judge Michael Gadola was assigned to the case.
“It is clear Democrats rigged this whole process to stop House Republicans’ fight to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in our budgets and go around the thing they hate the most– the Hall Ethics, Accountability, and Transparency plan (HEAT),” Hall said in a statement. “While the Democrat politicians and Lansing insiders fight for more wasteful spending, we’re suing to fight to protect the hard-earned dollars of Michigan families and taxpayers.”
The House is also asking the court to enter a temporary restraining order and grant a preliminary injunction to prevent the money from being sent out while the overall questions are considered by the court.
“Whatever administrative inconvenience defendants might suffer from a pause in spending is trivial compared to the irreparable injury to the constitutional structure and the public treasury that would result from permitting the executive to bypass the Legislature entirely,” the House argues.
The lawsuit argued that the House Appropriations Committee’s disapprovals have firm constitutional grounding and do not violate Michigan’s separation of powers doctrine, as stated by the attorney general’s opinion.
The House also argued that the committee action on behalf of the Legislature does not violate the Michigan Constitution’s bicameralism and presentment requirements because the committee’s actions were not legislative in nature and did not involve determinations of policy.
“The committee neither conducted debate nor took testimony before voting to disapprove the work projects proposals. … Indeed, a significant portion of the public criticism of the committee’s action was that it was done with ‘zero discussion’ and ‘no public comment or debate among appropriations members,’” the lawsuit said.
Citing a previous Supreme Court ruling in Blank v. Department of Corrections, the lawsuit argues that the lack of discussion or debate supports the committee was not making a policy decision and therefore was not taking legislative action requiring bicameral approval and presentment.
The House attorneys said if the mechanism that allows the House Appropriations Committee to disapprove work projects is unconstitutional, then the entire law, which also allows the State Budget Office to designate work projects, is unconstitutional.
“Even if the attorney general were correct that the legislative check is unconstitutional, the executive cannot simply sever the condition while retaining the power it was meant to restrain,” the lawsuit says.
“Without the legislative power to disapprove, the director has no authority to extend these appropriations at all, and the funds must undeniably lapse by operation of law.”
Additionally, the House Republicans said the state acted too quickly to spend the funds after Attorney General Dana Nessel issued her opinion.
“Time is of the essence. The State Budget Office’s ‘activation’ is the electronic equivalent of unlocking the vault,” the House argued in its motion for a temporary restraining order. “Departments are now free to encumber and spend these funds immediately. There is no waiting period. There is no further administrative hurdle. Absent a temporary restraining order, the status quo will be shattered, and hundreds of millions of dollars could flow out of the Treasury before a preliminary injunction hearing can even be scheduled.”
Separate from the lawsuit, House Republicans raised concerns about how Nessel defined work projects in her opinion, saying it calls into question either the validity of some work projects or Nessel’s opinion.
In her opinion, Nessel discusses work projects designation as it relates to the constitutionality of the law the House Appropriations Committee used to disapprove the funding.
She states that after an appropriation is enacted, the Legislature’s role ends, and it’s the executive branch’s duty to execute that appropriation. Nessel goes on to say that whether the executive branch faithfully executed the law consistent with legislative intent regarding work projects depends on the purpose of the funds, not how long the funds are available.
“A work-project designation does not change what the funds are spent on; it affects only how long they remain available to be spent for that legislatively determined purpose. In other words, the purpose remains fixed by the original appropriation,” Nessel said.
This is where House Republicans are raising a red flag on the opinion.
“The attorney general’s opinion ignores the plain facts in front of us,” Bollin said in a statement on Thursday. “The work project request submitted by the State Budget Office did not simply extend timelines. They repeatedly changed the purpose of the funding that the Legislature had approved.”
An example Republicans pointed to was funding within the Department of Corrections. The work project request asks that unspent money, which was originally appropriated for operations, be turned over into a work project to be used for infrastructure projects.
“That directly contradicts the claim that work projects only affect availability, not use,” Bollin said.
House Republicans also point to other examples within the Department of Treasury and the Department of Technology, Management and Budget, where funds are shifted from departmental operations to infrastructure or IT projects.
The Citizens Research Council of Michigan published a report examining the work projects process shortly after the House Appropriations Committee disapproved the funding last year, which gives weight to the concerns House Republicans have raised about the process, namely, as it relates to the Legislature’s duty to review and approve the money as an act of Legislative oversight.
“Work project designations are not simply a perfunctory administrative action taken by the executive branch. They represent new appropriation authorization that extends the life of what is otherwise a single-year appropriation that, under law, needs to lapse at the close of the relevant fiscal year,” the report said. “The legislature needs to have a role in approving or disapproving the executive branch’s proposals in the same way it has the critical responsibility for reviewing the Governor’s full budget proposals each year.”
The attorney general’s office decline to comment specifically on the questions House Republicans raised about the opinion.
“The attorney general is confident in the legal analysis and conclusions reached in her opinion and believes the courts will agree,” said Kim Bush, spokesperson for the attorney general’s office.
––––––––––––––––––––
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
