Michigan House Committee Weighs Bill Requiring Attorney General to Report High-Cost Litigation
Why It Matters
A bill before the Michigan House Judiciary Committee would require the state Attorney General’s office to submit detailed spending reports to the Legislature on any lawsuit where expenditures surpass $250,000. Supporters say the measure would give Michigan taxpayers a clearer accounting of how litigation dollars are spent; opponents argue it is a politically motivated effort to constrain Attorney General Dana Nessel.
What Happened
The House Judiciary Committee heard testimony on the bill during a hearing on May 13, 2026. The measure was introduced by Rep. Jason Woolford (R-Howell), who argued that requiring written justifications for costly lawsuits is a matter of basic fiscal accountability.
“These reports must include a full accounting of the spending and explanation of the case and justification for why Michigan taxpayers are footing this bill,” Woolford said. “This is basic accountability, nothing more.”
Woolford stressed that the bill would apply to any future attorney general regardless of party, not solely to Nessel, whose term expires at the start of 2027. At the same time, he criticized Nessel’s use of the office, accusing her of pursuing “politically motivated lawsuits” that he said were aimed at “headlines, revenge and scoring points.”
Democrats on the committee pushed back sharply. Rep. Kelly Breen (D-Novi) characterized the bill as a partisan broadside against a Democratic officeholder. When Breen raised that concern directly, Woolford responded, “She happens to be holding the office. Who do you want me to blame?”
Nessel’s office did not provide comment before the hearing concluded.
By the Numbers
- $250,000 — the litigation spending threshold that would trigger mandatory reporting to the Legislature under the proposed bill.
- $3,430.79 — the amount Breen said Nessel’s office had spent on the “false electors” prosecution, which Republicans repeatedly cited as an example of politically motivated litigation. That figure fell well below the bill’s reporting threshold.
- Early 2027 — the date Nessel’s current term ends, meaning the bill, if enacted, would apply to her for less than a year.
- 0 — the number of Senate floor votes on a related package of bills passed by the Republican-led House earlier this session that would have limited the AG’s powers; that legislation has remained in a Democratic-controlled Senate committee.
Zoom Out
The hearing is part of a broader pattern of legislative friction between Republican-controlled state chambers and Democratic attorneys general across the country, as GOP lawmakers have pursued oversight mechanisms targeting multistate litigation — particularly cases challenging federal policies or election-related matters.
In Michigan specifically, Republicans have taken several legislative runs at constraining Nessel’s office. A package of bills that cleared the House Judiciary Committee in recent months and would have limited the AG’s authority in county-level circuit courts cleared the Republican House but has stalled in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Michigan’s attorney general has also joined multistate legal action challenging federal executive orders, adding to Republican concerns about how litigation resources are being allocated.
The false electors case — in which Nessel’s office prosecuted individuals accused of attempting to submit fraudulent Electoral College votes in the 2020 presidential election — was dismissed at the district court level after a judge found insufficient evidence of criminal intent. That case became a recurring reference point during the hearing, with Woolford citing it as an example of litigation he believed warranted public accounting.
What’s Next
The bill remains under committee consideration; no vote has been scheduled. Even if the measure clears the Republican-led House, it would face a difficult path in the Senate, where Democrats hold the majority. The broader legislative push to increase oversight of the AG’s office appears likely to continue as Nessel’s term draws toward its close.
Michigan lawmakers are also navigating other high-profile spending debates this session, including the bipartisan expansion of the Rx Kids program, which has drawn support from both parties and represents a contrasting example of cross-aisle cooperation on state budget priorities.