Full Breakdown
Michigan Attorney General Declares Funding Cuts Unconstitutional
1/8/2026, 1:21:28 AM
Overview of the Funding Cuts
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has declared that a law enabling House Republicans to cut $645 million in state funding is unconstitutional. This determination follows a request from Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Sarah Anthony, D-Lansing, and is based on two constitutional principles: the Separation of Powers and Bicameralism and Presentment. Nessel's opinion asserts that the law allows a single legislative committee to overstep its authority, violating the constitutional requirement that laws must be debated and passed by both legislative chambers and signed by the governor.
Legislative Context and Actions
The funding cuts were enacted by the Republican-controlled House Appropriations Committee on December 10, 2025, utilizing a seldom-invoked statute from the Management and Budget Act. This statute permits either the House or Senate appropriations committee to disapprove funding for specific programs, known as work projects, which are allocated state budget funds. House Speaker Matt Hall, R-Richland Township, framed the cuts as a necessary measure to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in government spending.
Despite Hall's assertions, the cuts have raised concerns among recipients of the funding, which included critical infrastructure grants, economic development initiatives, and support for legal defense services for low-income individuals. The House Democrats have criticized the cuts, arguing that they jeopardize essential services and projects.
Official Statements & Responses
Nessel's opinion has been met with mixed reactions. She emphasized that the law's mechanism for disapproval effectively creates a "legislative veto," which undermines the executive branch's role in executing laws. Nessel stated, “When an appropriation is enacted, the Legislature’s role ends, and the executive branch’s duty to faithfully execute the law begins.”
House Minority Leader Ranjeev Puri, D-Canton, expressed gratitude for the constitutional backing against the cuts, stating, “I’m grateful to know that the state Constitution is on our side, and these cuts are being stopped before they can do any more damage.” Conversely, House Appropriations Chair Ann Bollin, R-Brighton, criticized Nessel's opinion as politically motivated, asserting that the committee acted within its legal authority. She remarked, “Nothing about our action was unconstitutional... the days of unchecked slush funds and blank checks are coming to an end.”
Criticism & Opposition
Democrats have introduced legislation requiring both chambers' appropriations committees to approve any disapproval of funding for work projects, aiming to enhance transparency and accountability. In the Senate, bipartisan efforts have emerged to restore $634 million in project funding through a supplemental bill, although its passage in the House remains uncertain. Critics argue that the cuts reflect a disconnect between Republican priorities and the needs of Michigan residents.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
While Nessel's opinion holds significant weight, House Republicans have indicated plans to challenge it legally. Speaker Hall stated, “We are going to sue... to stop this absurd and incorrect interpretation of Michigan law.” This legal battle may further complicate the funding situation and delay the restoration of critical projects.
What's Next
As the situation develops, the Michigan House and Senate will likely continue to debate the implications of Nessel's opinion and the future of the funding cuts. The outcome of potential legal challenges and legislative actions will determine the fate of the affected projects and the broader implications for state governance.
