Michigan House pushes back on Senate lawsuit over lame-duck bills – Washington Examiner
The Michigan House has mounted a legal defense against a lawsuit initiated by the state Senate concerning the non-passage of bills from the recent lame-duck session. The Senate, led by Democratic Majority leader Winnie Brinks, authorized the lawsuit after Republican House Speaker Matt Hall refused to advance nine bills to Governor Gretchen Whitmer. The House argues that the Senate lacks standing to sue,asserting that the prior session’s bills are no longer valid and that the new legislature is not obligated to act on them. The House’s filing contends that the previous legislature’s business does not carry over,emphasizing that past legislatures cannot constrain future ones. the legal dispute arises amid a shift in legislative power, with Republicans gaining control of the House in 2024 following a Democratic trifecta in the previous session. The debate has highlighted tensions over legislative responsibilities and party dynamics within Michigan’s government.
Michigan House pushes back on Senate lawsuit over lame-duck bills
The Michigan House responded to a lawsuit from the state Senate over not pushing through bills passed during the lame-duck session.
Last month, Democratic state Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks was authorized by the Senate in a resolution to sue Republican House Speaker Matt Hall after he refused to send nine bills passed last session to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s (D-MI) desk. After going ahead with the lawsuit, the state House responded on Friday, arguing the Senate has no standing, the previous bills are dead, and the current legislature isn’t bound by the previous one.
“Starting with substance, the Senate’s complaint presents a simple question: does Michigan
law impose a duty on the 103rd Legislature to present legislation passed by the 102nd Legislature?
The answer is no,” the court filing read.
“The Senate’s claim that the current ‘House’ has a ‘constitutional duty to present
these bills to the Governor’ is wrong because: (1) the business of the 102nd Legislature does not
continue into the 103rd; (2) a past legislature cannot bind future legislatures; and (3) Michigan’s
Constitution imposes no duty to present legislation upon any specified legislative body or officer,” it continued.
The House argued that the presentation of the bills to the governor was the duty of the previous legislature and, having failed that task, the current one has no obligation to carry it out.
The Republican-held House further argued that Brinks had no standing to sue. If anything, the matter is between the House and the governor. The intervention by the judiciary would mark an unlawful imposition into an intralegislative dispute.
Democrats had a trifecta in the 102nd legislature, but Republicans seized control of the House in 2024.
In a speech last month, Brinks argued that the House’s refusal to forward the bills was “illegal.”
“I hope to make it abundantly clear that we will not tolerate illegal, partisan games that evade our state constitution,” she said.
“This can be avoided completely if the speaker does his job and sends these bills to the governor,” Brinks added. “I hope he makes the right choice.”
At a press conference of House Republican leaders soon after, Michigan House Republican Vice Chairman Brian BeGole said the bills were “just radical,” especially regarding criminal justice.
“The criminal group had the best representation right in Lansing under the Democrats. I mean, these are violent criminals … had better representation than the victims under the trifecta. So that ends here,” he added.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...