Question 1): Last Monday, Senate Majority Leader Winnie BRINKS (D-Grand Rapids) filed a lawsuit against House of Representatives Speaker Matt HALL (R-Richland Township) “for illegally blocking nine bills” that passed near the end of last year but have not been presented to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.
MIRS newsletter reported that Brinks filed the lawsuit in Michigan’s Court of Claims. Senate Democrats have retained Goodman Acker P.C. attorney Mark BREWER –- the Michigan Democratic Party’s former chairman –- for the lawsuit.
“Speaker Hall’s gamesmanship is not just disrespectful to the sanctity of our constitution, it is an outright disservice to the residents of Michigan,” Brinks said in a press conference. “I refuse to let our constitution go ignored, and I refuse to let the hardworking men and women of Michigan continue to be actively harmed by the Speaker’s inaction.”
According to Hall, his office has been conducting a legal review of whether he’s responsible for transmitting bills from a past session of a Legislature that had adjourned sine die, after Speaker Joe Tate and majority Democrats left the bills behind on their way out the door.
In a Thursday press conference, Hall said he can’t be served with the lawsuit because the constitution gives legislators immunity from lawsuits for activities completed in their official capacity (See “Speaker Claims He Can’t Be Served With Senate D’s Lawsuit,” 2/6/25). Hall cited Article 4, Section 11, which reads, “Except as provided by law, senators and representatives shall be privileged from civil arrest and civil process during sessions of the legislature . . .”
So, the question is — What will ultimately happen to the nine bills from the 102nd Legislature that House Speaker Matt Hall in the 103rd Legislature is keeping in the House clerk’s office?
Answer 1): There are two distinct possibilities, with dramatically different outcomes. First, there is the historic reluctance of the judicial branch of government to intrude on the internal workings of the legislative branch, which has meant that the court or courts will simply “punt” by saying “Hey, you guys decide this among yourselves. We’re not going to intervene.” Secondly, there is the political fact that Michigan Democrats now have a hefty 5-2 majority on the state Supreme Court, their largest in many decades, and they also have ample representation on many circuit courts, appellate panels, and the Court of Claims. Past and recent actions have shown that Democrat-dominated courts have been more than willing to side with what their co-religionists in the Legislature (and organized labor) want, which is that Speaker Hall MUST forward these bills to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to either sign or veto. The expectation is that she will sign all nine of them, although Whitmer herself has been strangely deferential to Hall’s strategy so far, perhaps suggesting that she may not like to see several of the bills land on her desk.
If we presume that the Democratic-tilted courts will lean toward the second of the two possibilities, we can listen to one Democratic strategist who has argued that “When I read the Constitution, I see the words ‘shall be presented,’ and last I knew the word ‘shall’ means ‘must.’ I don’t know why the clerk didn’t present these, but I don’t know how someone can hold back bills that have passed the Legislature. At the end of the day, I think the Governor is going to see these bills.” Another Democrat, Walt Sorg, has said “I believe the Supreme Court will mandate that the Speaker send those bills to the Governor’s office, and she will act on them. My understanding is that these are nine bills that she can sign.”
The newly robust Democratic Supreme Court majority has already shown that it will weigh in on action by legislators, especially if it involves nullifying actions by a Republican-controlled Legislature. The Supremes demonstrated that in their ruling on the contentious “adopt and amend” strategy of GOP lawmakers in 2018 to water down initiative petition language increasing the state’s minimum wage and paid sick leave. In a decision that was without precedent (their ruling on this issue had never been brought before a court before), the Supremes’ ruling was that the 2018 Legislature could not do what they did in the same session although they could amend the initiative statute in a future Legislature. Of course, the high bench Democrats knew that by then it would be too late, or that it would be unlikely or impossible for Republicans to undo an escalating minimum wage and paid sick leave. A minority dissent (from a Republican justice) found that there was nothing in the Michigan Constitution or in law that indicated that the 2018 Legislature couldn’t “adopt and amend” a statute in the same session.
Therefore, the most likely outcome of the Hall-Brinks contretemps is that the Supreme Court majority will either 1) Wait until a lower court rules that Speaker Hall MUST forward the nine bills to the governor and then decline to rule on any appeal; OR 2) If the final appeal gets to the Supremes, they will find that, yes, Hall and the House majority Republicans LOSE and Winnie Brinks and the Democrats WIN, and Hall must comply with the Supremes’ edict.
************************************************
These loony left crazies got voted out for a reason. They don’t care about the Constitution, it’s merely in their way and will be ignored anyway. Have you read the bills? I watched these lunkheads passing laws in the middle of the night like it was a feeding frenzy. I cheered when the Republicans walked out in protest. These crazies have nothing coming! Block, block, block!
The left-wingers were not the bad guys here.
Rep. Karen Whitsett walked out due to the Dem establishment selling out their constituency.
What she did took fortitude and I suspect that she will receive retribution from Democrat House leaders.
The problem is that both the Speaker and the Clerk charged with presenting the Bills to the Governor no longer hold their offices…therefore who do you mandamus?
Real easy – their successors-in-interest.
The most astounding question here is WHY DID SPEAKER TATE NOT TRANSMIT the passed bills on to the governor’s office before the Michigan House adjourned?
Demonstrating to the citizens of Detroit his fitness to perform even the simplest of duties?
Don’t blame Speaker Tate only.
State Representative Karen Whitsett, a Detroit Democrat, stated in ignoring Speaker Tate’s call to attend to achieve quorum:
“Do the Republicans care more about the Black people than our own party? I guess so.”
Some, however, would view Whitsett and her position as an example of political courage – not deserving of blame.
Whitsett should be commended for her position – but Dem leaders would likely disagree
Jim makes an important point.
In addition, Article 4, Section 16 of the Michigan Constitution empowers each house of the legislature to make its own rules.
One of the rules the House adopted at the beginning of the 2023-24 legislative session concerns enrollment and presentment.
Whenever a bill is passed in a second legislative chamber in the identical form it was passed by in legislative chamber of the bill’s origin. The House rules provide that when those Senate passed bills were transmitted back to the House, the motion before the House would have been to enroll the bill for presentment to the Governor.
On December 19, 2024, the House lost its quorum and recessed for the rest of the day. Speaker Tate never gaveled the House back into session before the 110 house members terms of office expired at midnight January 1, 2025. No motion was ever made in 2024 to enroll those 9 senate passed bills in the House. On January 1, 2025, a new legislative session began with a new Speaker and Clerk. Neither had an obligation to have in 2025 the newly convened House enroll those bills or transmit them to the Governor.
I am sure the courts will hear arguments regarding the “Political Question Doctrine”
Remember Powell vs. McCormack being heard by SCOTUS in 1969?
The courts do not want generally to interject themselves on questions of legislative procedural matters.
Yeah, Adam Clayton Powell, a New York Congressman who was vilified due to corruption allegations.
A hero in the black community to this day.
Hey Bill! Another fine mess you’ve served up for us this week. Wouldn’t expect anything less. Thanks, a mil . . . er, how ’bout 9? as in 9 unfinished bills . . .
wrt Q#1: So, Michigan useless theatrics aside, it appears the Dems will demonstrate once again they are the party of lawlessness. Lawless in that any objective observer should know one doesn’t adjourn sine die, with more work left to be completed. Clearly, they were attempting to stiff the Repubs in Lansing to clean up their faits accomplis. Now, they wish to demonstrate their scorn and disdain by rubbing the political opponents’ nose into their excrescence, by, apparently purposefully transferring and conveying their wishes around the law. They wish to finish their power play by letting their bought and paid for judicial pets perform their coup de grace’.
This whole process stinketh-to-high-heaven. But what is one to do? Elections have consequences which those of us from the cheap seats have been screaming to the Repubs for years to get their act together. Else, this type of petty shenanigans is, has and will unfold over and over again. One can only dream of the day when Repubs get their turn at doing this and then have them surprise us and actually NOT do the same thing back. Fat chance unfortunately.
My suggestion for the Repubs is to just pass the bills along at their soonest opportunity and start nibbling on their freshly baked crow pie. And start planning soberly how to win a legitimate out-and-out election. Perhaps my grandkids may see that day . . . and I don’t have any grandkids.
Thanks for the updates, Bill . . .
Who is Sima Patel, the judge assigned to hear the case in question?
She did appeals work for Geoffrey Fieger’s law firm before beating Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Michael Warren in the 2022 election cycle for an open Michigan Court of Appeals seat.
Mark Brewer, the ex-Michigan Democratic Party chairman, is a Harvard Law School grad whose office is right down the street in Southfield from the Fieger Law firm. What a coincidence!
As there is no crying in baseball, there are no coincidences in politics.
“The most astounding question here is WHY DID SPEAKER TATE NOT TRANSMIT the passed bills on to the governor’s office before the Michigan House adjourned?”
Because the House lost quorum on December 19th and never regained it. The House Clerk noted this on both December 19th (Journal 88) and December 31st (Journal 89). House Concurrent Resolution No. 16, the ‘sine die’ adjournment, could not be passed on December 19th, nor on December 31st, under Chapter 45 of ‘Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure’ – the final authority cited in House Resolution 1 of 2023’s Rule 70. Mason’s is very specific about the ‘sine die’ motion in its § 445.
There was no valid ‘sine die’ adjournment of the 102nd Legislature’s House of Representatives. All bills not given immediate effect have no start date under Article IV, § 27 “Laws, effective date” of the Michigan Constitution. The Governor’s signature means nothing here. These bills have no legal effective date. They cannot be enforced.
It is not just these nine bills. Every bill not given immediate effect by the 102nd Legislature has no start date, at the very least all bills from the second session.
Now that is an interesting point I had not considered. The real question is this, will Judge Patel and the Supremes consider it. And it they ignore Mason’s Manual and its impact on the Constitution, the next batch of Supreme Court races could get very interesting indeed. Not just film at 11 for one day, but potentially many days.
If SCOMI ignores Mason’s Manual and its impact on Article IV, section 27, maybe an appeal to SCOTUS? Stranger things have happened.
Technically, a public body is given deference on the interpretation of its own rules.
To the extent “Mason”s Manual” is a respected authoritative authority that the Michigan House uses for guidance, a judicial officer should give deference to that interpretation.
Nice article, Bill. And timely. The political nature of the Supreme Court of Michigan (SCOMI) has always been present. At least during my lifetime. The GOP majority that John Engler bequeathed to his successors overturned precedents made by the previous Democratic majority. It is only a coincidence that many of those decisions tended to favor GOP leaning groups, just like the Democratic majority’s decisions tended to favor Democratic leaning groups. Of course that majority was made possible by the voters who elected two former Democratic governors – Soapy Williams and John Swainson in 1970 – over a pair of incumbent GOP justices. Then my early high school mind thought that would only apply to redistricting (silly boy). And many of the judicial nominees are overtly political. The plethora of Irish names on the bench, as well as politicians shows that. Cavanagh (father and daughter), Corrigan, McCormick, Kelly, Hathaway, Ryan and the list goes on. For the politicians, Williams, Kelly, Swainson, Brickley and Bolden, none of whom I believe had much if any previous judicial experience.
I agree with you that the GOP ‘s chances of prevailing are somewhere between slim and none, and Slim is saddling up his horse to leave town. The judge they’ve drawn in the Court of Claims, Patel, is a Whitmer appointee, I believe. And we can guess how she will decide the case. We can safely assume that SCOMI will do as you said they will and rule on behalf of their political co-religionists. They have forged new judicial territory on the “amend and adopt” issue. The absence of any prohibition in the constitution to preclude what the legislature did not stop them.
The only fly in the ointment as it were, is noted in the comment made in paragraph two of your answer by the unnamed Democrat, “I DON’T KNOW WHY THE CLERK DIDN’T PRESENT THESE, BUT I DON’T KNOW HOW SOMEONE CAN HOLD BACK BILLS THAT HAVE PASSED THE LEGISLATURE.” It has been my understanding that when a legislative term ends, legislation not signed dies. I suspect we are in uncharted territory here when it appears that the Clerk of the House, Rich Brown, I believe, failed to perform his duty, a clerk named by the Democrats. And apparently now former Speaker Tate did not do much follow up (a great way of telling Detroit how efficient and effective he’d be as mayor). I suspect the failure of the Clerk – and former Speaker for that matter -failure to do their jobs will be an interesting item for SCOMI to decide as to whether it actually means anything or not. At the very least, it should make for an interesting dissent and possibly something for Off The Record or some other PBS program where you, Bill, would make a most interesting panelist. Who knows, we may have our own version of Maybury v. Madison.
But politics, as always, will still be there. By the end of the year, the Democrats will announce who their candidates to be anointed at the 2026 convention are, the Republicans will wait mostly to their convention and duke it out, and the electioneering will begin. The only question is whether the GOP donor class and the Trumpian wing will bury their respective hatchets (and not in each other) or not. But that will be fodder for a later TBR.
It seems that judicial politics in Michigan will be entertaining as it should be. Film at 11.
That is “Marbury vs. Madison”.
Yes, Leanne, my bad typing skills strike again! Thanks for catching it. Must have been thinking about hiking Maybury State Park.
“It has been my understanding that when a legislative term ends, legislation not signed dies.”
‘Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure’ is also very specific in its § 445(3) about the expiration of all legislative activities after the ‘sine die’ motion is passed to end a session.
If the Michigan Supreme Court finds House Concurrent Resolution No. 16, the ‘sine die’ adjournment, valid despite the lack of quorum, they have to kill the 9 bills which the Senate is suing over. All business of the 102nd Legislature ended. There is no exemption for the House Clerk to continue working on behalf of the 102nd Legislature.
If the Michigan Supreme Court finds House Concurrent Resolution No. 16 invalid due to the lack of quorum, they have to render ineffective all the bills passed without immediate effect in the 102nd Legislature.
Either way, we are about to be treated to a Democratic exercise in non logical, Marxist dialectic.
There was no quorum because some Democratic Party legislators thought it was far more important to personally enjoy the Christmas holiday season rather than to zealously represent their constituents.
At least one Democrat in the Michigan House was fit to be tied over the unmitigated nonchalance of lawmakers in her party who prevented a quorum from being achieved.
As a longtime GOP supporter, this type of dissension and apathy is why the Republicans tend to to achieve crossover voting that gives them an edge in Michigan elections. The public is not stupid and can discern when a political party has dropped the ball.
2026 elections are around the corner…………………….
The Democrats spent the entire 102nd Michigan Legislature passing their noxious agenda by one or two vote margins in the House. They lost quorum on December 19th by one vote and never recovered quorum, so they never adjourned sine die.
The Democrats wrote House Concurrent Resolution 1 of 2023 declaring ‘Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure’ the rules of the House. A lot of legislation passed by the 102nd Michigan Legislature has no effective date as a consequence.
Saul Alinsky’s Rule 4 controls here: “Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
Speaker Matt Hall has cowboyed up over the nine bills approved by the Senate during the 2024 lame duck session which did not get sent to Governor Whitmer. His response in a legal filing Friday: “The answer is no”. Now he needs to challenge all the other bills not given immediate effect by the 102nd Legislature. They are all legally null.
“Sine die” according to Black’s Law Dictionary means:
“Without day; without assigning a day for a further meeting or hearing.”
“Hence, a final adjournment…………..”
“Sine die” according to Black’s Law Dictionary means:
“Without day; without assigning a day for a further meeting or hearing.”
“Hence, a final adjournment…………..”
The issue here is procedural, not definitional. For the sine die procedure, go to the Michigan Legislature’s designated authority: ‘Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure’, § 445. It is titled “Motion To Adjourn Sine Die”.
§ 445 (2): “A motion or resolution to adjourn sine die or to fix the time to adjourn sine die, or any motion which would have the effect of dissolving a legislative body without provision for another meeting, presents a main question and is subject to debate, amendment, and all the subsidiary motions.”
§ 505 (1): “No question can be decided and no official action can be taken in the absence of a quorum, except to order a call or adjourn. Even the reading of the journal from the previous day is not in order in the absence of a quorum.”
The “adjourn” in § 505 (1) refers to day-to-day adjournment, not the session ending sine die adjournment. No legislative body may act on a main question without a quorum according to Mason’s, nor any other authority of which I am aware.
When I first read this fact pattern over Matt Hall and the failure to deliver the bills to the Governor, it reminded me of the situation in Marbury vs. Madison.
William Marbury was the poor chap who did not have his justice of the peace commission turned over to him by incoming Secretary of State James Madison. So he sued………..
Pursuant to the purported jurisdiction bestowed by Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, Marbury filed a writ of habeas corpus application with the U.S. Supreme Court.
Marbury’s case gets dismissed as the provision of that Act of Congress that conferred and enlarged the jurisdiction of SCOTUS to hear such actions was held to impermissibly violative of the U.S. Constitution section defining the powers of SCOTUS.
Marbury never got his commission delivered to him – much like Whitmer never will likely receive the nine bills for her signature. She’s a modern-day William Marbury.
Wonderful discussion. I can’t believe Speaker Tate dropped the ball.
Everyone knows of the increased politicization of the Michigan Supreme Court.
Wonderful discussion. I can’t believe Speaker Tate dropped the ball.
Everyone knows of the increased politicization of the Michigan Supreme Court.
Is Michigan, the only state legislature in the country where the Senate majority leader-a Democrat has sued the Republican speaker of the house. So much for working together.
John, the definition of “working together” in Michigan is we’ll get along well as long as you do what we tell you to do.
10x25mm makes a good point on Mason’s Manual and Article IV. As that gets fought over, the fun and games will truly begin. Glad you’re not in the legislature now?
You don’t negotiate with tyrants, you defeat them and dictate terms.
I am quite confident that the issue about service of process will be decided against Speaker Hall. Article 4, Section 11, which he cites applies to legislators as individuals in their private life, not in their elected capacity. Otherwise, no laws other than criminal laws would apply to the legislature. I don’t know how the question of bills not being forwarded that were passed during the last session of the legislature will come out, but it brings to mind an old Will Rogers quote: “I don’t belong to any organized political party; I’m a Democrat.”
………..and the outrage over the impotence of Democratic Party legislative leaders in Michigan during the “sine die” fiasco will spill over into the Michigan Democratic Party convention that will be happening shortly.
Governor Whitmer has been sending out text messages to Democrat state convention delegates endorsing State Senator Curtis Hertel, Jr. as the new Michigan Democratic Party chairman. These messages are being met with disgust – and most grassroots Democrats are supporting Al Williams as the sole candidate opposing Hertel at the upcoming convention. Hertel is being viewed as the favorite only because insiders such as Whitmer , Jeff Irwin, Gary Peters, Hilary Scholten and other insiders.
Al Williams is being endorsed by State Senator Mary Cavanagh, ill harper and many black leaders in Michigan.
Progressive activists are supporting Williams.
The Mary Cavanagh endorsement I found intriguing – but I can certainly see why no one among Democrats is really excited over handing over the Michigan Dems chairmanship to Curtis Hertel after his decisive defeat by Tom Barrett – which was a Blue Congressional seat being flipped to Red.
If Curtis Hertel runs the Michigan Democratic Party s well as his own congressional campaign was run, then the Democrats may have something to worry about.
Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement just announced she will step down from the state’s highest court by April 30th.