(The Center Square) – Michigan taxpayers could see major changes in how their dollars are spent as a lawsuit moves through the Michigan Court of Claims.
The Mackinac Center for Public Policy filed the lawsuit against the state’s Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity, arguing that billions in taxpayer dollars have been unlawfully siphoned into earmarks, often labeled “pork-barrel” spending.
“We filed this case because the constitution is clear,” AnnMarie Pariseau, the director of communications for the Mackinac Center, told The Center Square in an exclusive interview. “That safeguard exists to prevent waste, backroom deals, and misuse of taxpayer dollars – but it’s being ignored. This suit could impact billions in spending that currently bypasses those constitutional protections.”
Under the Michigan Constitution, taxpayer dollars to specific private groups or local projects require a two-thirds vote by both the state Senate and House.
“Taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being spent — and to expect that it’s done legally and fairly,” said Patrick Wright, vice president for legal affairs at the Mackinac Center. “Instead, we’re seeing politically connected projects pushed through without proper oversight or the constitutional safeguards that are supposed to be in place. This lawsuit is about restoring integrity and accountability to Michigan’s budget process.”
The Mackinac Center argues that, because the fiscal year 2024-25 general omnibus budget did not receive a two-thirds vote in either chamber, that under Michigan’s Constitution “no appropriation within that legislation can be for a local or private purpose.”
In its initial filing, the Mackinac Center points to two specific appropriations for local sports stadiums, which are distributed by LEO.
While the budget argued those appropriations were for a “public purpose,” the lawsuit argues that those “two grants are illegal and unconstitutional expenditures of state funds” because they are for local or private purposes.
“A favorable decision will help ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent through a transparent, accountable, and constitutional process,” Pariseau said. “Michigan taxpayers deserve transparency in how their money is spent, and confidence that lawmakers are upholding the constitution in the process.”
On June 17, LEO responded to the lawsuit, arguing that this “test case” of a lawsuit should not have been filed against it as it is “simply the vehicle through which the funds are to be expended.”
The Mackinac Center acknowledges that this lawsuit is not just about two stadiums though, instead it is addressing a widespread issue that has plagued Michigan budgets for years.
“Billions have been allocated over the years to things like stadiums, a cricket field, labor unions, and distilleries, often hidden under vague budget terms like ‘community enhancement grants’ or ‘special projects,’” Pariseau explains.
The lawsuit alleges that in fiscal year 2023-24 there were 342 earmarks totaling $1.6 billion. In fiscal year 2024-25, it alleges approximately $1 billion in earmarks, with “requests in for $4 billion in earmarks in this budget cycle.”
While the lawsuit is only challenging the earmarks for those sports stadiums, the Mackinac Center is hopeful that a ruling in its favor would have a widespread effect on hundreds of previous earmarks and billions of dollars.
“There are approximately 5 million taxpayers in Michigan. A billion dollars in earmarks is on average $200 per taxpayer,” the lawsuit states. “If Plaintiffs are correct, billions in earmarks have been improperly appropriated. Preventing illegal expenditures in this amount is in the public interest.”
The lawsuit requests a preliminary injunction to pause the earmarks for the sports stadiums. Pariseau told The Center Square that the judge has indicated he will try to issue a ruling on the motion for preliminary injunction before the end of the year.
If that injunction is granted, there could be significant repercussions for both future and past budgets.
“We want the court to uphold the Michigan Constitution by ruling that funding earmarks without the required supermajority vote is unconstitutional and block current unlawful payments,” Pariseau said. “Ultimately, our goal is to restore transparency and accountability to the budget process. If taxpayer dollars go to private interests, it must be done openly, with broad support, and in full compliance with the law.”
