WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HR 19

Mary Lee Pearson-Finch; mourn loss and commemorate life and legacy upon her passing.

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Omeria Scott

Michigan House rule HR19 would block any legislatively directed funding to cities or universities that don’t certify compliance with federal immigration enforcement.

Enrolled Bill Signed
#rules
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HR 19

Summary — House Resolution 19 (Michigan, 2025)

Subject: Amendment to House Standing Rule 52 — Restricting legislatively directed spending to municipalities and universities that certify compliance with federal immigration enforcement

Purpose and intent

HR 19 is a House resolution that amends Rule 52 of the Michigan House standing rules to condition the House’s consideration of appropriations containing “legislatively directed spending items” on municipal and university recipients’ cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The change is procedural (a change to House rules), not a change to Michigan statutory law.

Key provisions

  • Amends Rule 52 (Appropriations) of the House Rules to:
    • Require proper disclosure for any “legislatively directed spending item” (defined below).
    • Prohibit the House from bringing an appropriation bill or conference report to a vote if it contains a legislatively directed spending item whose intended recipient is a municipality or university that either:
    • Actively maintains any rule, policy, ordinance, or resolution that would subvert immigration enforcement in any way; or
    • Refuses to comply with federal immigration enforcement measures.
    • Require, as a precondition to consideration, that the municipality or university submit to the House:
    • Copies of its rules, policies, ordinances, and resolutions related to federal immigration law and enforcement (including ICE detainer policies and any statements about working with or harboring persons to shield them from federal enforcement).
    • An official letter, signed by the chief executive officer, governing board, or an authorized official, certifying that its rules/policies do not require or encourage subverting immigration enforcement and that the municipality or university will comply with federal immigration law.
  • Definitions:
    • “Legislatively directed spending item” — an appropriation that authorizes a specific dollar amount for a contract/grant/loan or other direct economic assistance to a specific person, organization, unit of local government, or project (i.e., not formula-based or competitively awarded).
    • “Municipality” — county, city, village, township, or state-established authority.
    • “University” — state universities described in Article VIII, §4–6 of the Michigan Constitution or independent colleges/universities incorporated under the cited statute.

Who would be affected

  • Municipalities (counties, cities, villages, townships, authorities) and colleges/universities that are potential recipients of legislatively directed spending items.
  • House appropriators and members who sponsor or request legislatively directed spending.
  • Potential indirect effects on grant programs and local budgeting where non‑competitive, targeted state appropriations are used.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • HR 19 is a rules change: its effect is to change the House’s internal procedures for considering appropriation bills and conference reports.
  • Legislative actions (selected):
    • Introduced by Rep. Matt Hall (Feb 6, 2025).
    • Reported from committee with substitute (H‑1) and substitute adopted (Feb 11, 2025).
    • Recorded House roll-call indicates close passage activity (roll call cited: Yeas 56, Nays 50, Not Voting 4 in one recorded action).
  • House Fiscal Agency: resolution would have no direct fiscal impact on state or local governments (per the nonpartisan analysis).

Notable stakeholder positions

  • Committee record shows testimony in opposition from civil liberties and immigrant‑rights organizations (e.g., ACLU of Michigan, Michigan Immigrant Rights Center), and various advocacy groups expressed opposition.

Practical implications

  • Because HR 19 operates through House rules, its immediate enforcement would be by the House majority—by refusing to consider appropriation measures that include targeted spending to entities that fail to provide the required documentation and certification.
  • It creates procedural prerequisites (document submission and official certification) that municipalities and universities must meet before they can receive certain types of legislatively directed funding; it may raise administrative, legal, and intergovernmental tensions around federal immigration policy and local autonomy.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.