By Elena Durnbaugh
Gongwer News Service
The Michigan Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in May that could potentially determine the fate of 9 bills leftover from the 2023-24 term that House Speaker Matt Hall declined to present to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.
Both the Court of Appeals and the Court of Claims previously ruled the Constitution required the House to present the bills. The Court of Appeals went further and ordered the House to present the bills.
House Republicans filed the appeal to the Supreme Court in December.
The Senate and the House will have 28 days to file supplemental briefs.
House Republicans, in their appeal, argued the Senate did not have standing in suing the House over the bills, and, by mandating they be presented, the court poses separation of powers concerns.
The appeal, prepared by Kyle Asher with Dykema, argues the House is unable to present bills from a previous legislative session.
"The business of the 102nd Legislature ended upon the final adjournment of its second regular session, and did not carry-forward into the 103rd Legislature. The Senate has failed to point to constitutional text, case law or other authority that would support its novel claim that the 103rd Legislature has a duty – much less a clear one, as is needed to prevail on their mandamus claim – to present bills passed by a prior legislature. That is because none exists," the appeal says. "This court should decline the Senate's request to make old business new again.
“The Senate's attempt to resurrect dormant legislation should be rejected, its motion should be denied, and the case should be dismissed."
Mark Brewer, who has been arguing for the Senate, said he looks forward to presenting before the Supreme Court.
“I’m looking forward to defending democracy in the Michigan Supreme Court on May 6 in this case where I represent the Michigan Senate against House Speaker Hall over his unconstitutional refusal to send 9 bills which had passed both houses of the Legislature to the governor,” he said on social media. “Both the Court of Claims and Court of Appeals held his action illegal and I’ll be urging the Supreme Court to do the same.” The case will face the Supreme Court's 6-1 Democratic majority in its appeal.
Gongwer News Service
The Michigan Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in May that could potentially determine the fate of 9 bills leftover from the 2023-24 term that House Speaker Matt Hall declined to present to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.
Both the Court of Appeals and the Court of Claims previously ruled the Constitution required the House to present the bills. The Court of Appeals went further and ordered the House to present the bills.
House Republicans filed the appeal to the Supreme Court in December.
The Senate and the House will have 28 days to file supplemental briefs.
House Republicans, in their appeal, argued the Senate did not have standing in suing the House over the bills, and, by mandating they be presented, the court poses separation of powers concerns.
The appeal, prepared by Kyle Asher with Dykema, argues the House is unable to present bills from a previous legislative session.
"The business of the 102nd Legislature ended upon the final adjournment of its second regular session, and did not carry-forward into the 103rd Legislature. The Senate has failed to point to constitutional text, case law or other authority that would support its novel claim that the 103rd Legislature has a duty – much less a clear one, as is needed to prevail on their mandamus claim – to present bills passed by a prior legislature. That is because none exists," the appeal says. "This court should decline the Senate's request to make old business new again.
“The Senate's attempt to resurrect dormant legislation should be rejected, its motion should be denied, and the case should be dismissed."
Mark Brewer, who has been arguing for the Senate, said he looks forward to presenting before the Supreme Court.
“I’m looking forward to defending democracy in the Michigan Supreme Court on May 6 in this case where I represent the Michigan Senate against House Speaker Hall over his unconstitutional refusal to send 9 bills which had passed both houses of the Legislature to the governor,” he said on social media. “Both the Court of Claims and Court of Appeals held his action illegal and I’ll be urging the Supreme Court to do the same.” The case will face the Supreme Court's 6-1 Democratic majority in its appeal.
