Citizen-initiated proposals aimed at increasing the minimum wage and expanding paid sick leave
In a significant ruling, the Michigan Supreme Court has reinstated the original minimum wage and paid sick leave laws that were initially gutted by the legislature in 2018. This decision reverses the amendments made by the legislature, which had adopted and then quickly weakened the voter-initiated proposals, effectively bypassing the intent of the voters.
Background
In 2018, two citizen-initiated proposals aimed at increasing the minimum wage and expanding paid sick leave were presented.
The Michigan Legislature adopted these initiatives to prevent them from going to a public vote, then promptly amended them to make them more business-friendly. This “adopt and amend” strategy reduced the scope and impact of the original proposals.
For example, the minimum wage was set to increase more gradually, and the paid sick leave law was adjusted to exempt more businesses from providing benefits.
The Court’s Ruling
The Michigan Court of Claims, with Judge Douglas Shapiro presiding, ruled that this legislative maneuver violated the state constitution. Shapiro’s opinion emphasized that once the legislature adopts an initiative, it cannot amend it within the same session.
This decision reinstates the original 2018 proposals, which include raising the minimum wage to $12 per hour and extending paid sick leave benefits to many more employees than the amended laws allowed.
The court found that the legislature’s actions undermined the will of the people, who had supported the more generous terms of the original initiatives. The ruling also highlighted the constitutional principle that initiatives should be protected from legislative tampering once they are adopted.
Implications for Workers and Employers
The restoration of these laws is a major victory for worker rights groups and unions, who argue that the higher minimum wage and expanded sick leave are essential for providing fair compensation and benefits to workers.
For instance, the reinstated minimum wage law also includes provisions to eliminate the lower tipped wage by 2024, ensuring all workers receive at least $12 per hour.
The paid sick leave law now requires businesses, including those with fewer than 50 employees, to offer up to 72 hours of paid sick leave annually.
This decision is seen as a move towards economic justice, addressing issues of wage inequality and providing greater job security and benefits for low-income workers. Supporters argue that these changes are necessary to meet the rising cost of living and provide a fair wage for all workers.
Business Community’s Response
The business community, however, has expressed significant concerns about the impact of these changes. Many business leaders argue that the restored laws will place a substantial financial burden on employers, particularly small businesses already struggling with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing economic challenges. They warn that the increased labor costs could lead to higher prices for consumers, reduced hiring, and even closures of small businesses.
The Michigan Restaurant & Lodging Association, for example, fears that the immediate implementation of these laws could create chaos in the hospitality industry, which is heavily reliant on the lower tipped wage model. Business groups are calling for a delay in implementing the changes to allow time for adjustment and are expected to appeal the ruling.
Next Steps
The Michigan Supreme Court’s decision marks a pivotal moment in the state’s labor policy, reaffirming the constitutional protections for voter-initiated laws. While the ruling is a clear win for worker advocates, the legal and political battles are likely to continue as business groups push back and seek ways to mitigate the impact on employers.
The state’s regulatory bodies, including the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity, are now tasked with ensuring compliance with the restored laws. They will play a crucial role in determining how these laws are implemented and enforced, potentially shaping the future landscape of labor rights in Michigan.
This ruling underscores the ongoing tension between protecting worker rights and addressing the concerns of the business community, highlighting the complexities of labor law and economic policy in Michigan.
Conclusion
The Michigan Supreme Court’s decision to restore the original minimum wage and paid sick leave laws represents a significant shift in the state’s labor policy, aimed at providing greater protections and benefits for workers.
While celebrated by worker rights groups, the ruling poses challenges for businesses, setting the stage for further legal and political debates.
As the state moves forward with implementing these changes, the balance between fair labor practices and economic viability will remain a central issue.
Read the opinion here:
Legal Counsel and Your Rights
When facing legal challenges, particularly in criminal cases, it is advisable to seek legal counsel immediately.
An experienced attorney can provide guidance on how to navigate interactions with law enforcement while safeguarding your constitutional rights.
Since 1993 our expert legal defense in navigating criminal law matters and protecting your constitutional rights are what we eat for breakfast everyday.
Contact Komorn Law PLLC if you’re ready to fight and win.
Research us and then call us.
More Rights You Should Know
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Prisoner in Possession
Prisoner in Possession of a Controlled SubstanceCase Summary In People v Tadgerson, the Michigan Supreme Court addressed a critical question: does the crime of a prisoner possessing a controlled substance under MCL 800.281(4) require proof of intent, or is it a...
4th Circuit says – Assault weapons can be banned
This case is about whether the Act’s general prohibition on the sale and possession of certain “assault weapons,” are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. An en banc federal appeals court upheld Maryland’s ban on assault-style weapons in a 10-5 decision...
Other Articles
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Appeal
Michigan appellate courts issued several significant decisions refining how convictions are reviewed, when relief from judgment is appropriate, and how procedural errors must be preserved. These cases collectively clarify retroactivity, evidentiary‑weight standards,...
Coalition Forms to Support Voter Approved MRTMA
New Coalition Forms To Support Voter Approved Cannabis ActMichigan’s adult‑use cannabis framework was not created by accident. It was built through a deliberate, voter‑driven process culminating in the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA). The Act...
Michigan Court of Appeals Orders City of Taylor to Release Police Misconduct Records
Case Summary The Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled that the City of Taylor must comply with a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted by the ACLU of Michigan seeking police misconduct records dating back to 2021. The request covers documents involving...
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Home Invasion
Case Summary In People v Berry, the defendant co‑owned a home with his former partner. After moving out and negotiating a buyout, he re‑entered the home with another individual before the agreement was finalized. Both were charged with first‑degree home invasion. The...
Cannabis Regulators Association-Briefing on Marijuana Schedule Change
Overview of the President’s December 18th Executive Order and the Implications When Marijuana is Rescheduled to Schedule III under the U.S. Controlled Substances ActTOP-LINE SUMMARY The President signed an Executive Order on December 18, 2025, ordering his...
Trump’s Marijuana Reclassification 2025
Donald Trump’s Actions On December 18, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order reclassifying marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This marks the most significant federal...
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Felon in Possession
Case Summary In People v Hughes, the defendant challenged Michigan’s felon‑in‑possession statute on Second Amendment grounds. He argued the law was unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to nonviolent offenders. The Court of Appeals rejected both...
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Controlled Substances
Case Summary In People v Soto (COA) the defendant faced a felony charge after an 85‑pound shipment of marijuana was delivered to her home. She argued that the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA) shielded her from felony prosecution because the...















