LANSING, Mich. — The Michigan House must present nine bills passed from the last session to the governor for her signature, an appellate court panel ruled Monday.

The 2-1 decision out of the Michigan Court of Appeals found that the House had a constitutional obligation to present the bills, and it ordered a lower court to set a deadline by which the Republican-controlled chamber must present them to the Democratic governor.

The state constitution "leaves no room for discretion" regarding whether or not the bills must be presented and clearly imposes that duty on the "Legislature as a whole" regardless of session, the opinion authored by Judge Thomas Cameron said.

"It is beyond dispute that the duty of presentment falls to the Legislature, and that the only chamber of the Legislature capable of presenting these particular bills is the House of Representatives, because the House of Representatives currently possesses them," wrote Cameron, an appointee of Republican former Gov. Rick Snyder. "As such, the ministerial act of presentment must, by the facts of this case, fall on defendants."

Cameron was joined by Judge Daniel Korobkin, an appointee of Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

Judge Christopher Murray, an appointee of Republican former Gov. John Engler, concurred with the majority that there was a clear constitutional duty to present the bills to the governor. But Murray argued in a dissenting opinion that the bills had to be presented before the new Legislature was sworn in at noon on the second Wednesday of January in an odd-numbered year.

Since that deadline has passed, "there is no remedy that the trial court can constitutionally impose," Murray wrote.

Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks, D-Grand Rapids, celebrated the decision as a win for the public employees impacted by the legislation.

"No matter how deep our political differences, the Constitution must be followed," Brinks said. "Skirting the law is bad enough, but it’s so much worse that they did it in the name of stopping bills that would have helped thousands of their constituents make ends meet."

The legislation at issue in the case would greatly increase government units' contributions toward state employee health care costs; allow corrections officers to join Michigan State Police's hybrid pension plan; allow certain Detroit historical museums to seek a property tax millage in Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties; and alter rules related to debt collection.

House Speaker Matt Hall, R-Richland Township, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The legal dispute stems from nine bills passed through both the Senate and House during the 2023-24 term, when Democrats held majorities in both chambers.

The bills, for reasons that remain unclear, weren't transferred to Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's desk for her signature or veto before Republicans took control of the House in January. Usually, the act of moving the bills to the governor is an automatic, administrative task completed within the same session.

Hall has so far refused to present the bills to the governor and the Senate sued at the start of the year to force their presentation.

The Republican-led House has argued it has no responsibility to finish the work of the last Democratic majority by presenting to the bills to the governor, and the Democratic-led Senate has argued the House has a constitutional duty to present those bills, regardless of when they were passed.

The battle marks the first time in roughly 200 years that a legislative chamber has asked the judicial branch to resolve a purely legislative dispute, battles the judicial branch is hesitant to wade into because of separation of powers issues.

Court of Claims Judge Sima Patel, a Whitmer appointee, ruled in February that, constitutionally, the bills must be presented to the governor for signature or veto. But she stopped short of issuing an official order requiring the GOP-led House to do so, noting that the court does not usually get involved in interpreting or enforcing internal rules governing House procedure.

But Cameron on Monday noted the constitutional language requiring presentation to the governor contains no language limiting the judicial branch's authority to interpret and enforce the mandate.

"Absent any such limitations, interpretation and enforcement of this constitutional provision, even in the context of governmental action, falls squarely within the scope of judicial authority," Cameron wrote.

_____

©2025 The Detroit News. Visit detroitnews.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.