Michigan House votes to put limits on cases Attorney General can intervene in

LANSING, Mich. — Michigan’s Attorneys General could be restricted in the cases they’re allowed to take up if bills voted on by the State House today become law.

Right now, the Attorney General can sue on behalf of the State of Michigan and intervene in local cases. The package of three bills, passed in the house on a party line vote, would change that.

They would prevent the Attorney General from deciding to intervene in civil or criminal proceedings in which Michigan may be impacted.

Instead, it would be up to the Governor or Legislature to decide whether to intervene.

The Attorney General would further be barred from unilaterally filing lawsuits in the name of Michigan or choosing Ingham County as a venue for cases involving incidents outside of the county.

State House Republicans criticized how this power has been used, and said the legislation is about fairness.

“It just doesn’t make sense under individual rights that the attorney general has this singular trump card, if you will, that just allows you to determine where your venue is going to be at,” Rep. Jay Deboyer (R-Clay) said. “Additionally, the idea that the attorney general, on their own, can go outside of the state of Michigan, can intervene, can take up cases, boy, that’s a really broad view, I would say.”

During her two terms, Attorney General Dana Nessel, a Democrat, has joined several lawsuits, including against both Trump administrations and other entities.

House Speaker Rep. Matt Hall (R-Richland Township) blasted her efforts.

“(Nessel) spends a lot of time going after her political opponents, but very little time winning cases,” Hall said. “We need to just rein in this out of control Attorney General, we need to rein her in, and we want her to focus on the important things like consumer protection.”

Democrats assert the bills will hamstring Attorneys General and hurt the office’s ability to enforce laws.

One Democratic lawmaker also defended Nessel ahead of the vote on the bills.

“(Nessel) has done more for the state of Michigan, for the people of Michigan in recent history, especially with the federal lawsuits that she has joined or started, and she has done so well in helping us make sure that kids with special needs get the funding that they need for disaster relief,” Rep. Kelly Breen (D-Novi) said. “Who wants to turn that down? Who doesn’t want an advocate that will do everything in their power for the people of Michigan.”

Nessel’s office responded to the bills and Hall’s comments in a statement.

“The bill package in question does not actually do what its sponsors purport, and would not take effect until the next attorney general takes office,” Nessel’s office said. “They are simply a distraction and will not deter this office from its work.”

Officials said they share the Speaker’s concerns for better consumer protections.

“We are now hopeful he will request movement on SB 134 to strengthen Michigan’s Consumer Protection Act, which this Department has championed for years, and has been sitting in House Judiciary since June of last year,” Nessel’s office said.

This is the second time in recent history that the legislature has tried to change how the Attorney General pursues cases.

The last time, the measures were vetoed by Gov. Rick Snyder, a Republican.

These bills are likely to meet a similar fate in the State Senate, which is controlled by the Democrats.