LANSING, Mich. — The Michigan Court of Claims has granted a preliminary injunction in the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation’s lawsuit challenging unconstitutional earmarks hidden in the state budget process. The preliminary injunction stops further payments from the challenged grant funding until the court reaches a final decision on the merits of the case.
The case, Mackinac Center for Public Policy v. Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity, challenges the constitutionality of so-called “community enhancement grants” and other earmarks inserted into state budget bills without the two-thirds supermajority vote required by the Michigan Constitution.
The Mackinac Center argues that Michigan lawmakers have routinely bypassed constitutional safeguards designed to prevent political favoritism and pork-barrel spending by embedding grants for specific local and private projects into budget bills. The lawsuit cites grants directed toward baseball stadiums and other favored projects that did not receive the constitutionally required two-thirds legislative approval.
The Court of Claims ruled on local-purpose grounds and said two types of grants would not count as local: grants tied to statewide systems, like highways, and grants for major cultural institutions, like the Detroit Institute of Arts. But one-year appropriations that mainly benefit a local community would still need a two-thirds vote in both legislative chambers.
“This ruling is a major victory for Michigan taxpayers and the rule of law,” said Patrick Wright, vice president for legal affairs at the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation. “The Michigan Constitution is clear: Lawmakers cannot funnel taxpayer dollars to favored projects and private interests without meeting the constitutional supermajority requirement. The court’s decision prevents additional unconstitutional spending while this case proceeds.”
The Mackinac Center Legal Foundation filed the lawsuit in 2025 seeking to restore transparency, accountability, and constitutional compliance in Michigan’s budget process. The legal challenge could have broad implications for how lawmakers approve earmarks and special district projects in future state budgets.
Case materials and background information are available HERE.
