This article originally appeared in the Lansing State Journal June 17, 2026.

A recent move by the Michigan Court of Claims could spell relief for Michigan taxpayers who have spent billions of dollars on constitutionally unsound pork projects. But the extent of the reform will depend on many factors.

The Court of Claims in May granted a preliminary injunction in the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation’s lawsuit challenging two earmarks hidden in the state budget process. The injunction stops further payments for two minor league baseball stadiums — UWM (formerly Jimmy John’s) Field in Utica and Jackson Field in Lansing — until the court reaches a final decision on the merits of the case.

These grants were made in apparent disregard for the language of Article 4 Section 30 in the Michigan Constitution: “The assent of two thirds of the members elected to and serving in each house of the Legislature shall be required for the appropriation of public money or property for local or private purposes.”

As was the case with the many other earmarks that have been approved in recent years, these grants did not meet the two-thirds threshold.

Lawmakers have found two main ways of avoiding the tight restriction on earmarks, which has been included in every Michigan Constitution since 1850. The first is to avoid naming the exact recipient of the earmark through tortured and elliptical language. Consider this description from the 2023 budget awarding public money to Fay Beydoun, the Farmington Hills businesswoman who was recently indicted on 16 felony theft and fraud charges:

“$20,000,000.00 shall be awarded to an international business accelerator located in a city with a population of between 83,500 and 84,000 and in a county with a population of between 1,250,000 and 1,300,000 according to the most recent federal decennial census that supports the growth of the Michigan economy by attracting top international entrepreneurs to establish their companies in Michigan with a focus on next-generation medical services and equipment; agriculture; engineering, design, and development; and other technology-focused industries.”

The other workaround is to make a broad assertion that the earmark truly serves a public purpose and will provide statewide benefits. It’s not clear how providing nice digs for the Lansing Lugnuts helps all the people of Michigan.

Though preliminary injunctions often indicate how a court may lean in its decision, the Court of Claims has yet to decide the case Mackinac Center for Public Policy v. Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity. This is not the only uncertainty for Michigan taxpayers.

More than $3 billion in earmarks have been approved in the last three years without the necessary two-thirds vote. How much of that money has already been spent, and how much of the unspent portion can be reclaimed for the state treasury? What recourse will Michigan taxpayers have for cash that was improperly given to private entities?

Given the amount of money that has been approved without proper authority, you might think the restriction on earmarks is a boutique concern with little popular appeal. That is not the case. Throughout Michigan’s history, language restricting local and private projects has been part of the Constitution. Minutes of the early 1960s convention that produced the current Constitution make it clear that a large majority of delegates opposed pork spending out of concern over corruption, patronage, and legislators’ desire to ingratiate themselves with influential constituents.

Current lawmakers also express concern over earmark abuse. The Michigan House in 2025 required lawmakers to go on record when they request earmarks, a step forward from a previous practice in which the identities of legislative sponsors often remained hidden until after the budget had been enacted.

As lawmakers move to reform this system of patronage, the Court of Claims has an opportunity to reassert the clear language of the Michigan Constitution: Lawmakers are not allowed to funnel taxpayer dollars to favored projects and private interests without meeting the supermajority requirement. For the sake of our state and your wallet, it is time to end this flagrant violation of the state’s founding document.

Permission to reprint this blog post in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author (or authors) and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are properly cited.