Aug. 7, 2026 | This Week in Government: Consumer Protection Law, Gutted 27 Years Ago by Supreme Court, Revived in New Ruling

Each week, the Detroit Regional Chamber’s Government Relations team, in partnership with Gongwer, provides members with a collection of timely updates from both local and state governments. Stay in the know on the latest legislation, policy priorities, and more. Sign up for the Chamber’s weekly newsletter, This Week in Governement.

Consumers will again have the ability to allege a business violated the Michigan Consumer Protection Act without the business having the power to thwart the complaint through asserting the transaction in question was lawful under a Supreme Court ruling issued Friday.

The ruling in Attorney General v. Eli Lilly and Company (SC Docket No. 165961) means Attorney General Dana Nessel can proceed with her investigation into the company’s insulin-pricing practices.

Democrats swiftly hailed the 4-3 ruling, which was just as swiftly denounced by business organizations.

In 1999, a conservative majority on the court, in a controversial ruling, held that the act’s language exempting a “transaction or conduct specifically authorized under laws administered by a regulatory board or officer acting under statutory authority” meant effectively that any transaction was exempt. That court ruled the key question is whether the general transaction is specifically authorized by law, regardless of whether the specific misconduct alleged is prohibited.”

That had the effect of ending the ability to claim violations. Democrats for years have attempted to amend the statute to restore it, to no avail.

Friday, a 4-3 majority of the Supreme Court ruled the 1999 Supreme Court erred in the Smith v. Globe Life Insurance Company case. There was a similar ruling known as Liss.

The plain language of the statute meant it was to be a narrow exception, Justice Noah Hood wrote, saying the 1999 court inserted “general” into the statute and broadened the exemption in a way not supported by the plain language.

“This exceeded the judiciary’s duty to interpret statutory law as written, not make it,” Hood said. “Since we decided Smith and Liss, a broad range of industries – regardless of the transaction or conduct in the specific case – have been judicially immunized from MCPA claims under the MCL 445.904(1)(a) exemption, demonstrating how these cases turned a narrow exception into broad immunity.”

Among the industries affected, Hood wrote, are home builders, car dealers, car makers, mortgage lenders and servicers, real estate agents, plumbers, physicians, grocery stores, casinos, and pesticide application services.

The Smith and Liss rulings meant “the mere existence of the licensure or regulation (in each industry) is sufficient to immunize the defendant. Neither the text nor the purpose of the MCPA supports such a result,” Hood wrote. “Smith and Liss essentially nullify all MCPA claims against swathes of industry sectors that would otherwise be subject to consumer-protection claims, contrary to the intent of the MCPA.”

Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh, Justice Elizabeth Welch, and Justice Kimberly Thomas signed the majority opinion.

Nessel brought the case in 2022 when she filed for civil investigative subpoenas in the Ingham Circuit Court, alleging Eli Lilly artificially increased the list prices of insulin medications in violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, arguing the company was charging more for insulin products sold in Michigan than in other countries and made false representations in its promotions of a product.

The Department of Attorney General simultaneously filed a complaint seeking a declaration that the Michigan Consumer Protection Act applied to the alleged conduct, arguing that Smith and Liss were wrongly decided and the transaction exemption did not apply.

Justice Kyra Harris Bolden, in a dissent, said the Department of Attorney General lacked standing to bring the case. Justice Richard Bernstein and Justice Brian Zahra signed the dissent.

The Department of Attorney General “missed the first step of demonstrating that there was an actionable claim” under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, Bolden wrote.

“Plaintiff has not shown with any specificity that defendant has violated the MCPA. Most damaging to plaintiff’s claim is plaintiff’s inability to show the relative costs of defendant’s insulin in Michigan,” Bolden wrote. “Plaintiff generally addresses the costs of insulin and makes broad comparisons to other countries, suggesting that there may be an unfairness or price discrepancy in the pharmaceutical industry, but plaintiff has come short of demonstrating with any specificity how defendant’s business engaged in any unfair practices. … Plaintiff has conceded that no violation of the MCPA has been pled. That alone should end our analysis.”

Bolden wrote that whether Smith, Liss or both cases were improperly decided are questions the court cannot reach absent standing.

“Until today, a plaintiff in this state was always required to show that there was an actual case or controversy before a court could resolve their issue,” she wrote. “This requirement served the important purposes of protecting innocent parties against lawsuit and acting as a check on our own authority to resolve hypothetical problems. Today, the majority overturns two opinions after overhauling our standing doctrine. Although the majority tries to cabin its holding to the facts presented in this case and to the specific context of MCPA investigatory subpoenas, its reasoning that standing should be found whenever alternative facts would establish standing would seem to grossly expand our standing doctrine without restriction.”

Hood, in his opinion, disagreed.

The circuit court’s authorization of investigatory subpoenas triggers a justiciable controversy the courts can consider.

“Although this case is in the investigatory stage of the proceedings, and the AG has not yet pleaded a substantive MCPA violation, this case involves a present legal controversy,” he wrote.

Nessel said she was relieved the Consumer Prevention Act was “restored to its true purpose” after being rendered toothless.

“The Michigan Consumer Protection Act was once the envy of consumer protection efforts across the nation, and today we can once again claim that mantle with these two abhorrent decisions off the books,” Nessel said in a statement. “Now, our extraordinary Consumer Protection Team can go back to helping residents who have been deceived by licensed businesses. We will no longer have to turn away parents who were price-gouged for baby formula at the grocery store or hardworking Michiganders who were swindled by deceptive used car contracts. We will no longer have our hands tied while pharmaceutical giants squeeze households over insulin and other necessary medications.”

Sen. Sam Singh, D-East Lansing, who has proposed related legislation to protect consumers that has been sitting in the House, also championed the ruling while also calling for a passage of his legislation to permanently restore the act.

“Everyone should be able to trust the companies they do business with, whether it’s the corner store or a billion-dollar business. When those businesses mislead or take advantage of our residents, our laws must be strong enough to hold them accountable,” Singh said in a statement. “Today, the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed what we’ve known for a long time … that Michigan Republicans’ previous efforts to gut our consumer protection laws are illegal and unconstitutional.”

The National Federation of Independent Business – Michigan expressed disappointment in the decision, saying the Supreme Court “disregarded precedent, leaving small businesses under greater uncertainty.”

“By reversing this decades-long framework, small businesses will now deal with the unintended consequences of this ruling with increased legal and compliance costs, additional litigation, and extra regulatory standards,” Amanda Fisher, NFIB Michigan director, said in a statement. “Michigan’s small business community is disappointed with this decision and remains concerned about the increasing threat of lawsuit abuse in the state.”

The Michigan Alliance for Legal Reform also said the decision overturned decades of settled case law and added “new layers of red tape and litigation exposure for professions and industries already under extensive government oversight.”

Zach Rudat, the director of the alliance, called on the Legislature to codify the regulatory compliance exemption and restore standards for those operating under government oversight with HB 5725, sponsored by Rep. Bill Schuette, R-Midland.

Brian Calley, president and Chief Executive Officer of the Small Business Association, spoke out in support of the bill.

“If a small business isn’t already regulated, it’s dependent on a service or industry that is. Losing the regulatory compliance exemption places a significant burden on main street businesses across Michigan, exposing them to duplicative red tape, greater risk, and higher operating costs,” Calley said in a statement. “Restoring this exemption isn’t just good policy – it’s essential to preserving the ability of small businesses to operate, grow, and compete.”

Also in support of the legislation are the Michigan Restaurant and Lodging Association, Michigan Realtors, and the Michigan State Medical Society.

Consumer advocates, however, hailed the ruling.

“Today’s ruling is a long-overdue correction that restores the promise of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act,” said Libby Benton, Director of the Michigan Poverty Law Program, in a statement. “For too long, Michigan consumers—especially those with the fewest resources—have been left vulnerable to unfair and deceptive practices. This decision reopens the courthouse doors and ensures that bad actors can once again be held accountable.”

The top of the general election ticket was settled Tuesday night, with a faceoff between Democrat Jocelyn Benson and Republican John James to become Michigan’s next governor.

Benson rolled to a blowout win that exceeded even the lofty expectations created by a poll showing her up 60 points, defeating Genesee County sheriff Chris Swanson, 83% to 17%, an astonishing 66% margin.

In the Republican primary, where James was the favorite but facing a torrent of negative ads creating a small amount of doubt on what the results would be Tuesday night, U.S. Rep. John James won the Republican gubernatorial primary race with a large margin as expected after a large gubernatorial field narrowed to favor him.

With 92% of the votes counted statewide, James, R-Shelby Township, had taken 50% of the vote, or 452,009 votes, with his opponent Perry Johnson trailing with 35.3%, or 318,598 votes, according to the Associated Press.

James told supporters at his election night watch party in Sterling Heights that now that the primary is over, it’s time to come together as a party to save Michigan.

“Tonight marks the beginning of Michigan’s comeback, but we have to be honest about where we are,” James said in his speech. “Michigan’s families are paying some of the highest gasoline price in the Midwest. Our unemployment rate is among the highest in America. Our children are falling behind. Our infrastructure is crumbling, and too many of our young people are leaving to find opportunities somewhere else.”

He said his opponent was part of the Democratic Party in power than led to spending more, but had less Johnson conceded his loss after on X, saying the early results weren’t what they hoped it would be.

“The career politicians and special interests may win tonight, but they will not win the future,” Johnson said on social media. “We will make Michigan great again!”

James said his next steps were to show that the choice is clear in November: freedom or socialism in the Democratic Party.

“We offer change; they offer continued decline,” James said in his speech. “We offer common sense; they offer crazy. But, but, but we should never underestimate how pain and desperation make false promises sound like hope. That doesn’t make socialism compassionate or workable or even viable. It is none of those things. It means we must listen to people failed by the status quo and answer their pain with solutions that actually work. They don’t want bureaucrats controlling their lives. They want groceries they can afford, homes they can buy, schools that will teach their children to read.”

The James’ campaign rolled after President Donald Trump’s endorsement in June, leading to the dropping out of two of his opponents: Senate Minority Leader Aric Nesbitt, R-Porter Township, and former Attorney General Mike Cox.

Cox pulled about 13% of the vote and Nesbitt with 1.8%.

The Republican gubernatorial primary proved to be the most expensive governor’s primary race in history, according to AdImpact, mostly on account of Johnson’s extensive self-funding. Johnson spent $31.9 million, James and his allies $8.2 million, Cox $5.4 million, and Nesbitt $1.7 million. Around $1.5 million was spent on James attack ads.

Michigan Democratic Party Chair Curtis Hertel released a statement on the nomination vote calling James a “failed politician who spends his time in D.C. lining his own pockets, while voting for higher costs for the rest of us,” and criticizing his loyalty to Trump and his loss record in his Senate races.

“Michigan voters have already rejected John James twice statewide, and that’s exactly what we’re going to make sure happens for a third time this November,” Hertel said in a statement.

Benson’s campaign has already prepped for the general election, placing $7.7 million yesterday of what will be a $10 million total statewide ad buy to hit broadcast channels in September. She’ll appear in Detroit with Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and then in Lansing with a yet-to-be-announced guest on Wednesday.

Benson is also slated to anchor the Democratic statewide ticket at the party’s general election kickoff in Detroit on Friday, where she’ll appear alongside primary winners from the U.S. Senate race and key legislative races, as well as secretary of state candidate Lt. Gov. Garlin Gilchrist and Attorney General candidate Eli Savit.

“Tonight marks our opportunity to grow our coalition to include citizens in every corner of our state who believe, as we do, that the power of the people must always be greater than the people in power. My life’s work is about making that promise, that hope, a reality,” Benson told supporters. “That, again, will be the choice facing Michigan’s voters this fall: who does your governor work for, what does she stand for, and who does she fight for? The Republicans have already shown us their vision for Michigan. It’s a vision that would raise health care costs instead of lowering them. A vision that stood by while housing costs climbed instead of fighting to bring them down. And a party whose leaders stood with Donald Trump when he tried to overturn a free and fair election instead of standing with the people of Michigan. That’s not the future Michigan wants. And together, we’re going to reject it this November.”

It seems Johnson was reading the tea leaves earlier in the day when his campaign cancelled around $1 million in ad reservations after the primary election. Johnson took to social media earlier in the day saying the James campaign should worry less about him pulling funding and more about their campaign “would be broke going against 30 million in reservations from Jocelyn Benson side.”

James is starting the general with a major funding disadvantage to Benson, outraising him 5-to-1. Benson finished her latest reporting period with $6.4 million on hand while James finished with $1.4 million.

Hertel congratulated Benson on her win and thanked Swanson for his participation in the primary.

“As secretary of state, Jocelyn has saved Michiganders time and money by transforming a broken government system, and time and again, she’s stood up to Donald Trump to protect our fundamental rights and freedoms. As our next governor, Jocelyn will work to lower healthcare, utility, and housing costs to build an affordable future where everyone can stay and thrive in Michigan,” he said in a statement. “I’d like to extend my thanks and appreciation to Sheriff Chris Swanson, who is a champion for working people in Genesee County and across the state. I know that he will continue working to move Michigan and our party forward. Michigan Democrats are fired up to elect Jocelyn Benson as our next governor and win a Democratic trifecta that will lower costs, expand healthcare, and invest in our public schools.”

Other Democratic organizations rushed to express the same congratulations to Benson and pledge general election support. The race between Benson and James is expected to see an influx of spending from national party infrastructure and outside groups beginning as soon as later this week.

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, who chairs the DGA, said Benson will be a formidable candidate in the general election.

“Jocelyn understands the challenges families are facing, and she has been a fearless public servant who fixes broken systems and improves the lives of Michiganders. As Secretary of State, she kept her promises and transformed one of Michigan’s largest departments into one that saved people time, increased transparency, and defended our democracy against relentless attacks,” Beshear said in a statement. “As governor, Jocelyn will tackle corruption, lower the costs of health care, housing, and energy, and always stand up to Donald Trump when he threatens Michigan families and their freedoms. She’s already earned the trust of Michiganders by winning statewide twice, and the DGA will be all-in to make sure she wins this high-stakes race so she can keep standing up for the people of Michigan.”

As the general election marches forward, names are beginning to emerge on who the party nominees for governor will pick as their running mates.

Gongwer News Service spoke to numerous sources in the Democratic and Republican parties about the names in the mix for Democratic nominee Jocelyn Benson and Republican nominee John James. They spoke on condition of not being named.

For Benson, the names most frequently cited were former Senate Minority Leader Jim Ananich of Flint, Senate Majority Leader Winne Brinks of Grand Rapids, Sen. Sarah Anthony of Lansing, and Sen. Mallory McMorrow of Royal Oak.

Meanwhile, the list of possibilities for John James runs longer, including three former opponents of his for the Republican nomination: former Attorney General Mike Cox of Livonia, former House Speaker Tom Leonard, and Senate Minority Leader Aric Nesbitt of Porter Township. Several other names were mentioned: Rep. Ann Bollin of Brighton, Sen. Lana Theis of Brighton, Rep. Rachelle Smit of Martin, Sen. Jonathan Lindsey of Coldwater, and Rep. Bryan Posthumus of Rockford.

A lieutenant governor choice involves a variety of factors: geography, gender, race, resume, and nothing troubling in their background that the opposition could use to harm the nominee for governor.

There are other considerations. Someone familiar with the Legislature and who can help on the governor’s agenda has long been seen as a plus. Going back to 1994, 12 of the last 14 persons nominated for lieutenant governor had served in the Legislature (Lt. Governor Garlin Gilchrist II is one of the two exceptions). The lieutenant governor generally needs to be someone the governor and the governor’s team trust to be a team player, who will support the governor 100% of the time and not embark on any sidequests to their own benefit.

And then there’s the actual nomination process at state party conventions in a matter of weeks (Republicans on Aug. 22 and Democrats on Aug. 29).

Republicans had serious headaches in 2010, 2014, and 2022 in getting their governor’s picks for a running mate through the uber-conservative convention. Democrats have not had the same problem, though with a new wave of activists successfully nominating progressive candidates for secretary of state and attorney general earlier this year at a raucous convention, that could get more consideration. Benson’s pick will be the only nominee under party rules but given the booing and chaos at the April convention, care will be needed to ensure the choice gets a good reception.

Only James can submit a name to be nominated for lieutenant governor at the convention under party rules. He must do so by 5 p.m. Aug. 14.

The rules say that if the choice does not receive an affirmative vote from the convention, James can address the convention and then resubmit the name or a new name. If the second nomination fails to receive a majority affirmative vote, then only someone who has submitted 2,000 or more precinct delegate signatures to MIGOP Chair Jim Runestad by Aug. 14 can be considered in a head-to-head vote against James’ choice.

Benson List Seen as Far Along, Focused on Handful of Names

Ananich, Anthony, Brinks, and McMorrow each have different factors in their favor.

Ananich comes from a part of the state (Flint) not represented on the ticket and would bring a blue collar brand that the current Democratic ticket (two attorneys in Benson and attorney general nominee Eli Savit and an engineer in Gilchrist) lacks. Anthony adds budget expertise, deep knowledge of Lansing from the staff, outside organization, and legislative realms and racial diversity. Brinks, who often has been at Benson’s side, would bring west Michigan geographic balance and 14 years of legislative experience, the last four at the highest level. McMorrow brings Oakland County geography, plus charisma and statewide campaign experience from her U.S. Senate bid.

Ananich’s recent resignation as chair of the Michigan Gaming Control Board fanned speculation. He’s currently head of the Greater Flint Health Coalition and teaches political science at Central Michigan University. There is talk, however, that he is not interested.

One source said the two who have been vetted are Anthony and Brinks. Anthony would have to relinquish her nomination to the 21st Senate District, where she is a shoo-in for reelection. Local Democrats would then choose a replacement nominee. Brinks, who is term limited, would not have the same issue.

Anthony responded to reports that her name appears on Benson’s shortlist, saying it’s “an absolute honor to be mentioned and considered.”

“I’ve encouraged Sec. Benson to consider a running mate with legislative experience, authentic community connection, and someone that comes from a diverse background,” Anthony told Gongwer in a statement. “The eyes of the nation are on Michigan, and I trust she will bring the right person on the ticket to help unite our party.”

Benson must submit her choice for lieutenant governor to the Michigan Democratic Party by 5 p.m. Aug. 25. No other candidates can be submitted.

Benson’s campaign did not comment on where she was in the selection process but confirmed the Aug. 25 deadline.

Many Possibilities for James

Several of those interviewed said James prefers to select a woman. All three Republicans on the statewide ticket (James, secretary of state nominee Tony Forlini and attorney general nominee Doug Lloyd) are men.

Still, it appears many people are in the mix.

Leonard has been campaigning with James since he dropped out of the race and endorsed him, saying at a recent rally that James “is who he says he is.” They have similar policy outlooks on repealing green energy mandates, local control on data centers, and pushing against energy rate increases.

To the rumor, Leonard said in a statement to Gongwer that he has “one focus right now: helping John James win in November. Period.”

Nesbitt dropped out of the gubernatorial primary race after President Donald Trump endorsed James, falling in line with the president’s choice. However, he has not been seen around the campaign since endorsing.

Nesbitt did not respond to requests for comment.

One Republican strategist said Nesbitt, who is from southwest Michigan, would be good geographically and that Lansing lobbyists like him.

Cox and James had a bruising fight in the primary with both trading sharp elbows. Still, Republicans said Cox’s decision to drop out, endorse James, and campaign with him was a sign the two can work together.

One challenge for James is he’s seen as the underdog to Benson. That means anyone currently on the ballot for the Legislature would have to give up their races, where they are all heavy favorites, for more of a gamble to become lieutenant governor if James can win.

Still, one Republican source noted that with the likelihood of the Senate remaining in Democratic control, any current GOP candidate for the state Senate might decide the risk of losing a lieutenant governor race and being out of office in 2027 is preferable to four years of serving in the minority in the Senate.

For Smit, one strategist said she has grown in the speaker pro tem role and could be a great face of the campaign. Smit, who comes out of the grassroots of the party, also would likely have no issues at a convention. Her tribute to those accused of plotting to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer after they were acquitted would likely be scrutinized for any risks to James.

Bollin, the House Appropriations Committee chair, would have to give up that role in 2027. However, she only has four more years of eligibility to serve in the House because of term limits.

Jason Cabel Roe, a Republican political strategist with Roe Strategic, LLC, said in parlor conversations that Leonard and Nesbitt are realistic options.

“I do think it’s going to be important for John to have someone that knows their way around Lansing, given he’s been at the federal level in his governmental career, and having a partner that understands the Legislature and the personalities, I think, is going to be important for him to be successful,” Roe said.

There would not be any personality issues getting in the way of a Nesbitt partnership, Roe said, with James and him staying civil throughout the gubernatorial race.

“He’s a guy that everybody knows and everybody likes, and even Democrats respect, and I think he’s very measured in his political rhetoric and I think that could be appealing to swing voters,” Roe said about Nesbitt.

Roe said Bollin could be a good partner who is well-versed in the world of House Appropriations and is experienced in public life while also being well-liked. Roe also tossed out Sen. Lana Theis, R-Brighton, who is termed out and is a policy wonk.

The James campaign did not respond to requests for comment on what the timeframe for choosing is and how deep into the vetting process they are.

The Public Service Commission is reviewing last month’s Supreme Court ruling that will require it to reconsider its approval of a permit for the Line 5 tunnel project to see whether it will review the existing record or reopen it for further evidence from parties, the commission’s chair said Thursday.

“We’re looking into what the court said and how that applies to the different elements in terms of the scope of our review and then the evidentiary support, whether we have what we need on the record that was developed over the course of the several years where it was in front of us or whether that’s something that would also need to be reopened for additional evidence,” PSC Chair Dan Scripps told reporters Thursday.

The question before proceeding, he said, was whether the commission has sufficient records regarding alternatives to the tunnel and public trust obligations.

His comments came following Thursday’s PSC meeting.

Scripps said he had no idea what the timeline would be for its re-review of the permit application or when it might be voted on again by the commission.

Last month, the Supreme Court in a 6-1 decision ruled the commission erred in its approval of the permit to Enbridge Energy for its planned Line 5 tunnel project to relocate the segment through the Straits of Mackinac to below the lakebed.

The high court ruled that the PSC must consider various environmental implications of the Line 5 tunnel project on its impact on public trust resources.

Enbridge attorneys in oral arguments before the Supreme Court in March argued that the PSC had limited authority under statute as to what it could consider in its decision to issue the permit.

The ruling overturned a Court of Appeals ruling upholding the PSC vote approving the permit.

“I was surprised. I mean, we had a unanimous ruling from the Court of Appeals upholding our decision,” Scripps said. “There’s language in that order around the thoroughness of our review, so it caught us, it caught me, a little off-guard. But, you know, we need to sort of adhere to what the Supreme Court has directed us to do, and we’ll do that.”

PSC members issued approval for the permit in December 2023, with conditions including requirements that Enbridge makes no significant changes to the route and location of the Line 5 pipeline segment within the tunnel as well as that it must exceed minimum federal regulations to ensure the tunnel’s safety and reliability. The permit also prevented third-party utilities from being able to co-locate inside the tunnel.

Scripps, prior to the Dec. 1, 2023, vote to approve the Enbridge permit, said the proposed tunnel was the most feasible way to mitigate the dangers of leaving the aging pipeline along the bottomlands in the Straits.

At the time he said: “At a minimum, relocating the pipeline into the tunnel provides additional options and maintains an additional layer of resilience for how we meet our energy needs in Michigan.”

On Thursday, Scripps said commission attorneys are reviewing the court’s decision and trying to determine the path forward procedurally.

“Is it purely a legal issue where it can be resolved in briefing? Is it more evidence-based where we would need to reopen the record?” Scripps said. “We’re working through that. … Obviously, we’ll be moving forward again at the commission.”

Scripps added that the commission considered some of the environmental factors in reviewing the permit application, estimating that about 100 pages of the roughly 350-page order in the PSC’s decision dealt with the environmental record in the case.

With the Supreme Court ruling, he added that future permits before the PSC will need to be reviewed using the standard applied via the Line 5 case.

Supporters of the project have said moving the line into a tunnel well below the lakebed would be the safest option to supply critical supplies of energy. Opponents called for the line to be shut down, saying a major leak could lead to catastrophic damage to the Great Lakes, wildlife, and shoreline.

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Attorney General Dana Nessel joined a lawsuit with 25 other states to challenge President Donald Trump’s tariffs.

The lawsuit claims the tariffs are illegal, and that the latest decision to impose tariffs on 80 countries that account for around 99% of all imports in the country will make already high prices on consumers even more of a burden.

“These irresponsible tariff policies are jacking up costs on gas, goods, and groceries for all Michiganders,” Whitmer said in a statement. “This new action by the U.S. Trade Representative, on behalf of the Trump administration, is a thinly veiled attempt to extend unnecessary tariffs on more than 80 countries, which will continue to raise prices for our consumers. I’m proud that Michigan is joining 24 other states in a lawsuit against this action. Together, we can develop a commonsense trade policy that lowers costs, supports businesses at home, and promotes stability for working families.”

Whitmer, while having an intentionally amicable relationship with the president, has been historically critical of his tariff policies. Whitmer wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post last year criticizing the policies for being chaotic.

Nessel said that when the courts strike down his tariff policy, “you would think that this administration would take the hint.”

“Now, the federal government is back a third time, trying to make families pay for the President’s failed agenda. We’ve blocked the Trump administration before and will do so again to keep money in the pockets of Michiganders,” Nessel said in a statement.

The Supreme Court has rejected the claims in the past that Trump can unilaterally impose any tariff on any product at any time. The lawsuit claims that the latest round of tariffs exceeds the legal authority of Trump’s office.