Michigan Gov. Whitmer Vetoes Debt Collection Garnishment Bills After Supreme Court Ends Legislative Dispute
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has vetoed two debt collection and garnishment bills that had been delayed for more than a year amid a constitutional dispute between the Michigan House and Senate, effectively ending legislation that would have expanded debtor protections and changed garnishment procedures.
The vetoes came just days after the Michigan Supreme Court declined to review a Court of Appeals decision ordering the House to present nine previously passed bills to the governor, clearing the way for Whitmer to act. The court’s July 10 order left intact the appellate ruling requiring the bills to be delivered to the governor after they remained stalled following the transition to a new legislative session.
Garnishment bills will not become law
Among the nine vetoed measures were House Bills 4900 and 4901, legislation closely watched by Michigan’s accounts receivable management industry.
House Bill 4900 would have expanded exemptions protecting certain public assistance benefits and property from debt collection and garnishment. House Bill 4901 would have made related changes to Michigan’s exemption laws.
The amendments were a legislative priority for advocates with the Great Lakes Credit and Collection Association before the bills passed during the 2023-24 legislative session.
Despite clearing the Legislature while Democrats controlled both chambers, the measures were never presented to Whitmer before the 2025 legislative session began and Republicans assumed control of the Michigan House.
Supreme Court allows presentment order to stand
The legal dispute centered on whether the House was required to present the bills after the legislative session had ended.
In its July 10 order, the Michigan Supreme Court denied applications for leave to appeal, allowing the Court of Appeals decision requiring the bills to be delivered to the governor to remain in effect. The majority did not issue a substantive opinion, while Justice Brian Zahra filed a lengthy dissent arguing the case raised significant constitutional questions about separation of powers, legislative procedure and the use of mandamus against the Legislature.
The underlying dispute began after the Senate sued the House in February 2025, seeking to compel delivery of nine bills that had been approved by the Legislature but withheld after the new House leadership took office. The Court of Appeals ultimately ordered the bills to be presented to the governor, a decision the Supreme Court allowed to stand by declining further review.
Whitmer cites administrative and legal concerns
In her veto message, Whitmer said the unusual procedural history made implementation impractical.
“The session during which the Legislature passed these bills has adjourned, and therefore my disapproval means they will not become law,” Whitmer wrote, adding that she is prepared to work with lawmakers on new versions of the legislation.
Whitmer also said the bills’ original April 2, 2025, effective date had already passed.
“Implementing these bills retroactively would impose an insurmountable administrative burden on the state and all Michiganders affected,” she wrote. “It would give rise to endless litigation. It would overwrite law that has since gone into effect.”
What it means for the ARM industry
The vetoes leave Michigan’s existing garnishment and exemption framework unchanged.
Any effort to expand debtor exemptions or revise garnishment procedures will now require lawmakers to introduce and pass new legislation during the current legislative session. Whitmer indicated she is willing to consider updated versions, suggesting the underlying policy proposals could return in future legislative negotiations.
