Michigan Supreme Court Leaves Presentment Ruling in Place; Governor Vetoes Bankruptcy Exemption and Garnishment Reforms - National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center

Court victory preserves the constitutional presentment requirement, but veto leaves vulnerable Michigan consumers without long-overdue protections

On July 10, 2026, the Michigan Supreme Court denied the applications for leave to appeal in Senate v. House of Representatives, leaving undisturbed the Michigan Court of Appeals’ ruling that the House must present nine previously passed bills to the Governor. Later that same day, Governor Gretchen Whitmer vetoed all nine bills—including House Bills 4900 and 4901, which would have substantially modernized Michigan’s garnishment and bankruptcy exemption laws.

The result is an important victory for the integrity of Michigan’s legislative process, but a deeply disappointing outcome for financially distressed families who have waited years for meaningful protection.

Michigan Supreme Court Declines Review

As NCBRC previously reported, the dispute arose after nine bills passed by both chambers of the 102nd Legislature were enrolled in December 2024 but never presented to the Governor. After the 103rd Legislature convened, House Speaker Matt Hall directed House Clerk Scott Starr not to transmit the bills. The Michigan Senate and Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks filed suit to compel presentment.

On June 17, 2025, the National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center (NCBRC), National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys (NACBA), and National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) filed an amicus brief urging the Court of Appeals to require presentment of the bills.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. NCBRC/NACBA Amicus Brief

On October 27, 2025, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that Article 4, Section 33 of the Michigan Constitution imposes a mandatory duty to present bills passed by both legislative chambers to the Governor. It directed the Court of Claims to issue a writ of mandamus requiring presentment. The House appealed.

NACBA and NCBRC filed an amicus brief in the Michigan Supreme Court urging it to deny the House’s application for leave to appeal.The Supreme Court brief was authored again by NCBRC Officer and NACBA member Matt Mason, together with co-counsel and NACBA member Alexander Berry-Santoro of Maxwell Dunn, PLC. NCBRC/NACBA Amicus Brief

Following oral argument on May 6, 2026, the Michigan Supreme Court issued its July 10 order denying both the House’s application for leave to appeal and the Senate’s conditional cross-application. The Court stated that it was “not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.”

The practical consequence of the Supreme Court’s order is significant: a bill that has passed both houses may not be nullified simply because a legislative official refuses to complete the presentment process.

Governor Whitmer Vetoes the Bills

Once the bills reached her desk, Governor Whitmer vetoed all nine. Her July 10 veto letter placed primary responsibility for the situation on House Republican leadership, stating that the House had spent 18 months withholding the bills, pursuing litigation, and creating unnecessary uncertainty.

The Governor also acknowledged the value of the legislation, observing that the bills “would have lowered costs for Michiganders and strengthened public safety” and that the result might have been different had they been presented on time.

Nevertheless, the Governor concluded that signing the bills in July 2026 would create serious retroactivity and implementation problems. Because the bills would have taken effect on April 2, 2025, she cited administrative burdens, potential litigation, intervening changes in the law, expired statutory deadlines, and fiscal effects extending across three fiscal years. She stated that she was prepared to work with the Legislature on new versions of the bills. The same-day veto followed the Michigan Supreme Court’s refusal to review the presentment ruling.

The ultimate result remains difficult to accept. Michigan consumers did not cause the House to withhold these bills, and they should not be the ones who bear the consequences. Rather than receiving long-overdue protections, financially distressed families are left under laws that all sides appear to recognize need modernization.

Long-Overdue Consumer Protections Lost

HB 4901 would have updated Michigan’s bankruptcy exemptions, many of which have failed to keep pace with increases in home and vehicle values. Among other changes, the bill would have:

1)Increased the exemption from $30,000 to $125,000 per debtor in a joint case, or $200,000 per debtor if disabled or aged 65 or older.

2) Motor Vehicle Exemption: Raised the exemption from $2,775 to $15,000 per debtor in a joint case.

3) Tools of the Trade: Expanded the exemption from $2,000 to $10,000 per debtor in a joint case.

4) Crime Victim Payments: Introduced a new exemption for payments to crime victims or their dependents.

5) Inflation Adjustment: Establishes a triennial inflation adjustment for all exemptions.

HB 4900 would also have modernized Michigan’s garnishment protections and helped preserve EITC refunds for the low-income working families those credits are intended to support.

The Michigan Poverty Law Program strongly criticized the veto, warning that “[b]y rejecting these commonsense reforms, the Governor has chosen to preserve a system that pushes working families deeper into financial crisis.”

For bankruptcy debtors, the consequences are especially severe. Increases in property values have created “paper equity” that can place a modest home at risk in Chapter 7 even when the homeowner has limited income and little practical ability to pay creditors. Seniors, people with disabilities, and families already living on narrow margins may therefore be denied a meaningful bankruptcy fresh start.

A Constitutional Victory, but a Consumer-Protection Setback

The litigation established an important principle: presentment is part of the constitutional lawmaking process, not an optional step that one official may indefinitely withhold. The Michigan Supreme Court’s denial of review leaves that principle in place and should discourage similar attempts to defeat duly passed legislation through inaction.

Yet a sound constitutional ruling cannot, by itself, deliver the protections contained in HB 4900 and HB 4901. The Governor’s veto means that those reforms must now begin the legislative process again.

NCBRC respectfully urges Governor Whitmer and the Michigan Legislature to act promptly on the Governor’s stated willingness to consider new versions. Any legitimate concerns about effective dates, fiscal planning, or administrative implementation can be addressed through carefully drafted, prospectively effective legislation. They should not become a reason for further delay.

Michigan consumers have already waited far too long. The political branches should move quickly to reenact these protections and ensure that financially distressed families are not made to pay indefinitely for a constitutional confrontation they did not create.

NCBRC and NACBA will continue to monitor developments and advocate for bankruptcy exemptions that provide Michigan debtors with a genuine opportunity for a fresh start.