by NACBA and NCBRC File Amicus Brief Urging Court to Deny Leave to Appeal
In the latest development in the ongoing constitutional dispute over the Michigan Legislature’s failure to present nine duly enacted bills to the Governor—including the critical consumer-protection measure HB 4901—the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys (NACBA) and the National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center (NCBRC) have filed an amicus brief before the Michigan Supreme Court. The brief, filed on April 16, 2026, urges the Court to deny leave to appeal and to uphold the Court of Appeals’ decision requiring issuance of a writ of mandamus compelling presentment.
The brief was authored by NCBRC Officer and NACBA member Matt Mason, together with co-counsel and NACBA member Alexander Berry-Santoro of Maxwell Dunn, PLC.
Background: A Constitutional Duty Long Ignored
As we previously reported, on October 27, 2025, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the Court of Claims and held that Article 4, Section 33 of the Michigan Constitution imposes a mandatory, ministerial duty on the Legislature to present every bill duly passed by both chambers to the Governor. The Court of Appeals directed the issuance of a writ of mandamus compelling the House Speaker and House Clerk to present the nine bills—which had been enrolled and held since December 2024—to Governor Whitmer for her consideration.
The defendants-appellants subsequently sought leave to appeal that ruling to the Michigan Supreme Court, prompting the present amicus brief on whether the Court should accept the appeal.
The Stakes for Michigan Consumer Debtors
The amicus brief emphasizes that this case is far more than a procedural skirmish between legislative chambers. As the brief explains, the case “is not simply about whether a bill is delivered from one office to another. It is about whether legislation impacting a guaranteed federal right—duly passed by both houses of the Michigan Legislature—can be nullified after the fact by the refusal of a single official to perform a required act.”
The consequences fall most heavily on vulnerable Michigan consumers. HB 4901 would modernize Michigan’s bankruptcy exemptions—last updated in 2005—to reflect dramatic increases in home and vehicle values. Among other improvements, the bill would:
- Raise the homestead exemption to $125,000 (or $200,000 for debtors over 65 or disabled), per debtor
- Increase the motor vehicle exemption to $15,000
- Create a new $1,475 “wild card” exemption that consumers could use to protect modest funds needed for essential bills
- Replace the existing inflation index for the homestead exemption with the FHFA Home Price Index, which more accurately tracks home value changes
- Protect Earned Income Tax Credits, unemployment compensation, and other governmental assistance benefits
Without these updates, the current Michigan exemptions—rated among the weakest in the nation in NCLC’s 50-state evaluation—leave many debtors, particularly seniors on fixed incomes, with so much “paper equity” in modestly priced homes that Chapter 7 relief is effectively unavailable to them.
The Constitutional Question
The amicus brief frames the issue narrowly but emphatically: whether the Michigan Constitution’s presentment requirement may be nullified after bicameral passage by the refusal of a single official to perform a ministerial duty. The brief argues that it may not.
As the brief states: “If presentment can be withheld, then the laws designed to protect vulnerable populations, including the elderly, the disabled, and financially distressed consumers, can be defeated without a vote, without debate, and without accountability. The consequences are not theoretical. They are immediate, and they fall on the very individuals the Legislature sought to protect.”
Relief Requested
The amicus brief urges the Michigan Supreme Court to:
- Deny leave to appeal to the House of Representatives;
- Uphold the Court of Appeals’ decision finding that the Senate is entitled to mandamus;
- Remand to the Court of Claims to issue a writ of mandamus ordering Defendants-Appellants to present the nine bills to the Governor; and
- Modify the relief to require immediate presentment, rather than leaving the timing to the Court of Claims’ discretion.
The brief notes that more than fifteen months have now passed since the bills were enrolled in December 2024. Given the unconscionable delay already endured, the brief urges, there is no good reason to permit further delay in the resolution of this case.
Why This Matters
NCBRC and NACBA continue to view this litigation as fundamentally about the integrity of both the legislative process and the bankruptcy system. When duly enacted protections for vulnerable debtors can be defeated by the inaction of a single official, the constitutional guarantee of presentment becomes optional—and the very consumers the Legislature sought to protect are left without recourse.
NCBRC will continue to monitor and report on developments in this important case as it proceeds before the Michigan Supreme Court.