Arguments over the fate of nine bills that passed the Michigan Legislature in 2024, but never made it to the governor, will happen before the state Supreme Court Wednesday morning.
The bills passed last term under what was then a Democratic-controlled Legislature. The Michigan House of Representatives was still enrolling them when the current Republican leadership was sworn in and chose to stop everything.
The House argues it’s not its job to finish last session’s work and that requiring it to still forward the bills to the governor would create a slippery slope. The state Senate argues, under the state Constitution, all bills that pass both chambers of the Legislature must be forwarded on to the governor.
The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled the House does need to send the bills to the governor. But it didn’t set a timeline.
The policies themselves cover ranging topics, sparking many different groups to get involved and file briefs with the court.
One bill would undo limits placed on what percentage of health insurance costs public employers can cover.
Michigan AFL-CIO union president Ron Bieber said that would create cheaper healthcare for thousands of people.
“It should help them lower healthcare costs for workers like teachers, first responders, and other essential public workers. It puts healthcare back where it should be: the costs negotiated between employers and their union,” he said.
Bieber is taking the Senate’s side that each of the bills must go to the governor. He dismisses the House’s arguments.
“They're just wrong. The House is constitutionally obligated to transmit all bills that pass the Legislature to the governor,” Bieber said. “The lower courts have all ruled in the favor of the working people here and the Senate, that these bills should have been transmitted.”
But on the other side, some groups argue it’s too late for the bills to become law.
The Michigan Creditors Bar Association is taking issue with a couple of bills that would limit wage and property garnishment for debt collection and bankruptcy proceedings. Supporters argue they would help keep people safe and out of economic ruin when trying to settle debt.
But Association president Stuart Best argues the bills would cause more harm than good, partly since a tool to ensure debts do get settled would be weakened.
“It doesn’t allow us the ability to assist them in getting the debt paid down. The debt just stays out there, and it increases and it creates a situation where people can’t get out of debt,” Best said.
Beyond that, Best said it would be a huge burden should the bills become law now after so much time has passed. He said there would need to be some amendments made at the very least before they take effect.
“There has been garnishments, thousands and thousands of garnishments and executions that have happened during the pending of these bills, and we don't know the relationship to those that were completed years ago, how that bill's going to affect it,” Best said.
He’s also concerned the potential limits on bankruptcy proceedings would hurt unsecured creditors, like providers of credit cards, and student or personal loans.
The other bills at stake would allow corrections workers and other public employees to tap into the state police pension system, and create a path to extend tax-based support for some Detroit museums.
Supreme Court arguments will take place at 10 a.m. Wednesday in Lansing.
