Updates About Supreme Court Rulings

This week, both the Michigan and U.S. Supreme Courts rejected separate legal challenges that sought to put a proposed constitutional amendment addressing citizenship verification and voter identification on the November election ballot, ending the initiative’s chances this year.

The group behind the initiative, Americans for Citizens Voting Michigan, submitted nearly 710,000 signatures, well above the 446,198 required to be considered. However, upon review of a random sample of the signatures, the Bureau of Elections determined the campaign fell three valid signatures short for validity. The Board of State Canvassers then deadlocked over whether additional voter affidavits should be counted.

The group subsequently asked both courts to intervene and place the proposal on the ballot. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene and did not state why. The Michigan Supreme Court declined to order the Board of State Canvassers to certify the proposal, and suggested that the Legislature review state law governing the timing and process for petition signature reviews.

Recently, The U.S. Supreme Court completed its 2025-2026 term. Throughout the term, the Court issued several landmark decisions in relation to birthright citizenship, elections, and executive authority. Below are short summaries of four of the most significant rulings.

Birthright Citizenship - Trump v. Barbara

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s executive order that attempted to end birthright citizenship. The court then agreed, 5-4, that the constitution’s fourteenth amendment guarantees citizenship to everyone born in the United States. Justices Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and Barrett held the majority opinion. Justice Kavanaugh concurred in striking down the executive order, but did not rule it unconstitutional. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented to both decisions.

Federal Reserve Independence - Trump v. Cook

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court blocked President Trump’s attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, holding that Federal Reserve governors remain protected from removal without cause. The ruling preserved the Federal Reserve’s longstanding independence from direct presidential control. The Justices in the majority opinion were Kagan, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Jackson, and Chief Justice Roberts. Justices Thomas, Barrett, Gorsuch, and Alito all dissented.

Executive Powers - Trump v. Slaughter

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld President Trump’s removal of Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, ruling that the President does have the power to remove independent agency officials who exercise significant executive power. The decision overturned a previous court case that previously protected the officials from removal without cause. This decision does not apply to the Federal Reserve as outlined in Trump v. Cook. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett formed the majority, while Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented.

Mail-in Ballots - Watson v. Republican National Committee

The Supreme Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that mail-in ballots that are cast and postmarked by the day of the election will be counted even if received after Election Day has passed. The Republican National Committee had started the suit against Mississippi’s Republican Secretary of State, Michael Watson, to try and block the Mississippi law that permits counting late mail-in ballots. The Justices with the ruling opinion were Barrett, Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. The dissenters were Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.

After the ruling was announced, President Trump said he was disappointed with the decision. Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson issued a statement supporting the decision, stating that it upheld voting rights and helped to ensure more citizens are able to vote.

A procedural mistake made during Lame Duck when nine passed bills were not presented to the Governor before concluding the 2023-2024 legislative session will finally be put to rest. While the 103rd Legislature was still settling in at the start of 2025, Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Township) made the strategic decision to refuse presenting to the Governor several bills passed during Lame Duck by the previous Democrat-majority House.

After more than a year of ambiguity, the Supreme Court announced last week that they will not be making a decision on the case, instead deferring to the Court of Appeals’ previous ruling. Under the lower court’s ruling, the Michigan House was required to present all nine bills to the Governor.

In a surprising twist, the Governor vetoed all nine bills on Friday. In her veto letter, Governor Gretchen Whitmer reasoned that the bills would create an administrative burden due to other conflicting laws that have since gone into effect, statutory deadlines that have expired, and fiscal impacts that were not accounted for in the newly passed FY 27 state budget.

The bills would have covered a range of issues, including requiring public employers to make greater contributions toward their employees’ health insurance, permission to seek a property tax millage for Detroit history museums, enter corrections officers into the State Police pension system, and offer protections for various public benefits from the threat of debt garnishment.

Related Articles: HOUSE MUST SEND 9 LEFTOVER BILLS FROM PREVIOUS LEGISLATURE TO THE GOVERNOR • SUPREME COURT: SENATE LAWSUIT OVER HOUSE BILLS WILL GO THROUGH USUAL LEGAL PROCESS • BRINKS SEEKS SUPREME COURT RULING AND MAKES SENATE RULE CHANGE IN ONGOING FIGHT OVER HOUSE BILLS • MICHIGAN HOUSE DECLINES TO SEND NINE BILLS TO GOVERNOR • SENATE DEMOCRATS FILE LAWSUIT AGAINST SPEAKER HALL