Why Did Michigan House Speaker Matt Hall Reverse Course on FOIA?

 

LANSING — For years, Matt Hall argued that Michigan's Legislature should no longer be exempt from the state's Freedom of Information Act. He voted for transparency legislation, criticized legislative leaders for failing to act, and appeared to support opening the Capitol's doors to greater public scrutiny.

Today, as Speaker of the Michigan House, Hall has taken the opposite position.

The same type of legislation he once supported is now stalled under his leadership, leaving many lawmakers, journalists and government watchdogs asking a simple question:

What changed?

The answer has never been fully explained.

A Campaign for Transparency

Michigan is one of only two states where both the governor's office and the Legislature remain exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. That means citizens cannot use FOIA to request lawmakers' emails, calendars, internal communications, or many records routinely available from state agencies.

For years, reformers have argued that exemption undermines public confidence and allows government to operate behind closed doors.

Matt Hall once appeared to agree.

As a state representative and later House Republican leader, Hall supported legislation to extend FOIA to the Legislature and publicly criticized the lack of progress. At the time, Republicans frequently argued that transparency should apply equally to every branch of government.

Those statements earned praise from advocates who believed meaningful reform might finally be within reach.

Then Hall Became Speaker

Everything changed after Republicans regained control of the Michigan House and Hall became Speaker.

In early 2025, the Michigan Senate overwhelmingly approved bipartisan legislation to expand FOIA to both the Legislature and governor's office.

The bills weren't partisan.

They were sponsored by Democratic Sen. Jeremy Moss and Republican Sen. Ed McBroom.

The proposal included exemptions designed to protect constituent privacy, legislative research, attorney-client communications, and other sensitive records while still giving the public access to government documents that are currently unavailable.

Many expected the bills to receive serious consideration in the House.

Instead, Hall declared them "dead on arrival."

Later, he went even further, saying publicly:

"We're just not going to do FOIA."

The statement surprised many transparency advocates because it represented a dramatic departure from Hall's earlier support.

An Unanswered Question

The most striking aspect of Hall's reversal is not simply that he changed his position.

It's that he has never provided a detailed explanation for why.

Instead, Hall argues that FOIA is not the best tool for government accountability.

He has promoted what Republicans call the HEAT Plan—Ethics, Accountability and Transparency—which includes requiring earlier disclosure of legislative earmarks, limiting certain legislative practices, and restricting former lawmakers from immediately becoming lobbyists.

Those reforms address ethics.

They do not give citizens the legal right to obtain government records.

To critics, the distinction matters.

FOIA allows reporters and citizens to independently verify government actions instead of relying solely on information officials choose to release voluntarily.

Following the Power

Political observers often note a familiar pattern in state politics.

Lawmakers in the minority frequently support greater transparency.

Once they gain control of government, enthusiasm for open-records laws often fades.

That pattern has crossed party lines.

Democratic leaders have previously faced criticism for failing to advance FOIA reforms when they controlled the Legislature.

Now Republicans are facing many of the same questions.

Hall's critics argue the issue is no longer about party affiliation.

It is about whether those holding power are willing to subject themselves to the same public scrutiny required of nearly every other government agency in Michigan.

What Could FOIA Reveal?

Supporters of expanding FOIA say the issue extends far beyond curiosity.

Opening legislative records could allow the public to examine:

• Communications between lawmakers and lobbyists.

• Internal discussions surrounding major legislation.

• Scheduling records showing meetings with special-interest groups.

• Documents related to earmarks and budget negotiations.

• Communications involving outside organizations attempting to influence legislation.

Current law generally prevents the public from obtaining many of those records.

Transparency advocates argue that exemption shields important government decision-making from independent review.

Supporters of the exemption counter that legislators need confidential space to negotiate, debate ideas, and serve constituents without every internal discussion becoming public.

A Rare Alliance

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the debate is who agrees.

The Michigan Press Association supports FOIA expansion.

The Mackinac Center for Public Policy supports it.

The ACLU of Michigan supports it.

Progress Michigan supports it.

These organizations disagree on nearly every major political issue.

Yet they have united behind one principle: Michigan's elected officials should not enjoy exemptions from public-records laws that apply to nearly every other public body.

The Political Cost

Hall's position has become one of the defining transparency issues of his speakership.

Supporters say he is pursuing accountability through different reforms.

Critics argue those reforms avoid the one change that would give citizens the greatest independent oversight: access to government records.

Without FOIA, the public cannot compel disclosure of many legislative records.

Instead, lawmakers largely decide for themselves what information will be released.

The Bottom Line

The central question remains unanswered.

Matt Hall once argued that legislative transparency should be expanded.

Today, he is preventing legislation that would accomplish that goal from advancing in the Michigan House.

His public explanation is that other reforms are more important.

His critics say that answer does not explain why he abandoned a position he once championed.

Until Hall offers a fuller explanation—or allows the Legislature to vote on the issue—the debate is likely to continue, leaving Michigan as one of only two states where both the governor's office and Legislature remain largely beyond the reach of the Freedom of Information Act.

This version is written in an investigative-news style, emphasizing the documented timeline and the key unanswered questions without asserting motives that haven't been established.

Michigan Supreme Court: Judges Cannot Automatically Ban Legal Marijuana Use for Probationers

The Michigan Supreme Court has issued a unanimous ruling that could significantly change how probation is administered across the state, holding that judges cannot automatically prohibit probationers from using recreational marijuana that is legal under Michigan law simply because it remains illegal under federal law.

The decision came in the case of Danielle Heaven-Leah Hess, who was serving probation after pleading guilty to third-degree retail fraud. As part of her probation, Hess was ordered not to use marijuana. After testing positive twice, she argued that her marijuana use was lawful under Michigan's recreational marijuana law and should not subject her to additional penalties.

Lower courts rejected her argument, relying on a Michigan probation statute requiring probationers to obey federal law, where marijuana remains classified as an illegal controlled substance.

The Michigan Supreme Court disagreed.

In its opinion, the court concluded that the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act was enacted specifically to protect adults from state penalties for lawful recreational marijuana use. The justices ruled that those protections cannot be overridden simply by pointing to federal marijuana laws.

The ruling means judges may no longer impose blanket marijuana bans on probationers solely because cannabis remains illegal under federal law. Instead, any restrictions on marijuana use must be supported by legitimate case-specific reasons rather than a general reference to federal law.

The court stopped short of saying judges can never restrict marijuana use during probation. It noted that future cases may determine whether such restrictions are appropriate when tied to rehabilitation, substance abuse treatment, public safety concerns, or offenses involving marijuana.

Legal experts say the decision reinforces the growing divide between Michigan's marijuana laws and federal policy. Since voters legalized recreational cannabis in 2018, Michigan courts have continued to address how state legalization affects criminal justice proceedings.

The ruling is expected to influence probation practices throughout Michigan by requiring judges to evaluate marijuana restrictions on an individual basis rather than applying them automatically.

While the decision strengthens protections for adults legally using recreational marijuana under Michigan law, it also leaves unanswered questions that will likely be resolved through future court cases. Those decisions could further define when, if ever, marijuana use may still be limited as a condition of probation.

Gordie Howe International Bridge Set to Open July 27 After U.S.-Canada Reach Agreement

 

After months of uncertainty and a last-minute delay, the long-awaited Gordie Howe International Bridge is finally set to open to traffic on July 27, marking a historic milestone for Detroit, Windsor, and North American trade.

Canadian officials announced Friday that the United States, Canada, and the State of Michigan have reached an agreement clearing the way for the $6.4 billion international crossing to begin operations later this month. The announcement ends weeks of speculation after the bridge's planned June opening was unexpectedly postponed.

The delay had become an unusual point of tension between the neighboring countries. Canadian officials initially described the holdup as involving technical and operational matters, while reports later indicated President Donald Trump had sought greater U.S. involvement in the bridge's ownership and financial arrangements before allowing the crossing to open.

Those issues now appear to have been resolved through negotiations between Washington and Ottawa.

The Gordie Howe International Bridge stretches across the Detroit River, connecting Interstate 75 in Detroit with Highway 401 in Windsor, Ontario. Once open, it will become one of the busiest commercial border crossings in North America, providing an alternative to the nearly century-old Ambassador Bridge.

The new crossing is expected to significantly improve the movement of goods between the United States and Canada. Nearly one-quarter of all trade between the two countries passes through the Detroit-Windsor corridor, making the region one of the most important economic gateways on the continent.

For Michigan, the bridge represents more than just new infrastructure. It is expected to strengthen the state's manufacturing sector, particularly the automotive industry, by reducing border congestion and improving supply chain reliability. Businesses on both sides of the border have long argued that a second major crossing was necessary to support growing trade volumes and future economic growth.

The project has also been notable because it was financed primarily by Canada, which covered construction costs and will operate the crossing through the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority. Michigan contributed by building the connecting highway infrastructure on the U.S. side.

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mike Rogers said Friday that the agreement had been reached through negotiations between the United States and Canada, a statement that was later followed by the official announcement from Canadian officials confirming the July 27 opening date.

Construction of the bridge has taken nearly a decade and has overcome engineering challenges, legal disputes, political disagreements, and the COVID-19 pandemic. With those hurdles now behind it, the Gordie Howe International Bridge is poised to become a landmark of international commerce and one of the most significant transportation projects in the Great Lakes region.

When traffic begins flowing on July 27, the new span will not only connect Detroit and Windsor but also reinforce one of the world's most important economic partnerships between the United States and Canada.

Video: JOHN JAMES EMBARRASSES HIMSELF PERRY JOHNSON DEMANDS APOLOGY

 

Tonight John James said the most controversial, most absurd , racist and age discriminating remark.  He does not deserve to hold office.  

Perry Johnson is demanding an apology. 

Here's his social media post:

John James, you need to apologize and retract the most pathetic, unfortunate, and desperate candidate mistake Michigan has ever witnessed on a debate stage.

It was a shameful attempt to distract from your favor-based relationship with special interest groups like DTE, and the data center builders who are funding your campaign.

I know you have been uncomfortable on stage over the the last two nights getting called out on for being beholden to these special interests, but cracking under pressure with this nonsense is a bridge too far.

This is why we can’t afford to have you on the top of the ticket. Republicans will lose up and down the ballot in November as they have in the past because you crumble under pressure.

I would expect this type of language from the liberal Democrats you vote with, but not a Republican candidate for Governor.

Grow up.

The Debate: Perry Johnson Owned the Stage While John James Played Defense

 

If Republican primary voters were looking for a candidate who looked ready to take on the future Democratic nominee Jocelyn Benson or Chris Swanson, Wednesday night's gubernatorial debate offered a clear answer: Perry Johnson.

From the opening exchanges to the closing statements, Johnson came prepared, aggressive, and focused. He repeatedly forced Congressman John James onto the defensive, challenging his record and making James answer difficult questions instead of allowing him to deliver polished campaign talking points.

Former Attorney General Mike Cox also turned in a solid performance. Cox brought years of legal and political experience to the stage and landed several effective criticisms of James, making it a difficult night for the congressman.

John James, meanwhile, looked more like the front-runner trying to survive than the leader trying to inspire. Rather than controlling the debate, he spent much of the evening responding to attacks from both Johnson and Cox. That's rarely the position a candidate wants to be in.

One moment that is already generating discussion among viewers was James' use of a comparison involving Jesus while describing criticism directed at him. Whether intended as a rhetorical illustration or not, many Republicans are likely to view the comparison as unnecessary and distracting. In a campaign centered on inflation, public safety, education, and Michigan's economy, it shifted attention away from the issues voters care most about.

Johnson, by contrast, kept bringing the conversation back to government accountability, jobs, and the economy. He projected confidence and appeared comfortable under pressure, making a strong case that he is more than capable of taking on Benson in the general election.

Mike Cox deserves credit as well. While Johnson arguably had the strongest overall performance, Cox demonstrated why he remains a serious contender. His experience was evident throughout the debate, and several of his exchanges with James landed effectively.

As for who "won" the debate, every voter will make that decision for themselves. But from this observer's perspective, Perry Johnson walked onto the stage as an underdog and walked off looking like the candidate with the most momentum. Mike Cox also improved his standing, while John James had one of his toughest nights of the campaign.

With the Republican primary drawing closer, this debate may prove to be a turning point. If Johnson can build on Wednesday night's performance, the race for the GOP nomination may be far more competitive than many political insiders expected just weeks ago.

John James flees the studio after poor debate performance.  Refusing to meet with reporters after the debate. 

Mallory McMorrow Expected to End U.S. Senate Campaign, Reshaping Michigan's Democratic Primary

 

Michigan's race for the U.S. Senate is poised for a major shake-up.

State Sen. Mallory McMorrow is expected to suspend her campaign for the Democratic nomination Sunday afternoon, according to multiple sources familiar with the decision. The sources spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the announcement publicly. 

If confirmed, McMorrow's departure would dramatically alter one of the nation's most closely watched Senate races. Michigan is considered a critical battleground state in the fight for control of the U.S. Senate, making every development in the contest nationally significant. 

McMorrow, who has represented parts of Oakland County in the Michigan Senate since 2019, entered the race in 2025 as one of the Democratic Party's rising stars. She built a national profile through viral speeches and became known for advocating abortion rights, voting access, gun safety legislation, and generational change within Democratic leadership. 

Her campaign, however, faced increasingly difficult political headwinds as the Democratic primary intensified. Recent polling showed support consolidating behind fellow Democratic candidates, particularly former Wayne County Health Director Abdul El-Sayed and U.S. Representative Haley Stevens. Several high-profile endorsements in recent weeks also reshaped the dynamics of the race. 

McMorrow's expected withdrawal is likely to leave many of her supporters searching for a new candidate ahead of the Democratic primary. Political observers will closely watch whether she endorses another contender or chooses to remain neutral.

On the Republican side, former U.S. Representative Mike Rogers remains the leading Republican candidate seeking the seat being vacated by retiring U.S. Senator Gary Peters. The general election is expected to be among the most expensive and competitive Senate contests in the country. 

As of Sunday afternoon, McMorrow had not publicly announced her decision. An official statement from her campaign is expected later in the day, which may provide additional details about her reasons for ending her Senate bid and whether she intends to support another Democratic candidate moving forward. 

Why Is the Gordie Howe Bridge Still Closed?

The delay surrounding the Gordie Howe International Bridge has become more than a transportation issue. It is now a political, trade, and transparency issue.

The newly built bridge between Detroit and Windsor is complete. The ports of entry are complete. The Michigan interchange is complete. After years of construction and billions of dollars invested, the bridge appears ready to open.

Yet it remains closed.

A planned ribbon-cutting was abruptly canceled after U.S. officials requested a postponement. Since then, the public has received no clear explanation from federal officials about what specific “outstanding issues” are keeping the bridge from opening.

That silence is the problem.

Republican Senate candidate Mike Rogers has argued that the United States should use the bridge opening as leverage against Canada over its decision to allow Chinese electric vehicles into the Canadian market at reduced tariff rates. Rogers says the issue directly affects Michigan auto workers and the future of the American automobile industry.

His argument is simple: if Canada wants access to a new bridge into Detroit, then Canada should not be opening its market to Chinese-made vehicles that could undercut American manufacturers.

But the larger question remains: should a completed international bridge be held up without a public explanation?

Engineering News-Record raised that concern directly, noting that the Gordie Howe Bridge has cleared the normal construction hurdles. The bridge is built. The inspection facilities are finished. The road connections are ready. Yet the public is still being asked to accept a delay without being told why.

That matters because major infrastructure projects depend on certainty. Governments make agreements. Contractors build based on those agreements. Communities plan around those agreements. Businesses invest based on those agreements.

When a finished project is delayed without explanation, confidence erodes.

The Gordie Howe International Bridge was not a casual project. It was designed to support one of the most important trade corridors in North America. Billions of dollars in commerce move between Michigan and Ontario. The automotive supply chain depends on reliable cross-border movement. Truckers, manufacturers, suppliers, and workers all have a stake in this bridge opening.

There may be legitimate trade concerns involving China, electric vehicles, tariffs, and USMCA compliance. Those issues deserve serious debate. Michigan’s auto industry should not be casually exposed to unfair competition from state-subsidized Chinese automakers.

But if the bridge is being delayed for trade leverage, officials should say so.

If the bridge is being delayed for security reasons, officials should say so.

If the bridge is being delayed because of negotiations over tolls, ownership, tariffs, or some other dispute, officials should say so.

What should not happen is a completed public infrastructure project sitting unused while federal agencies refuse to explain the reason.

The Gordie Howe Bridge may eventually open soon. It may open next month. The explanation may turn out to be routine. But right now, the issue is not just the bridge. The issue is transparency.

Michigan deserves answers.

Canada deserves answers.

The construction industry deserves answers.

And the workers and businesses depending on this crossing deserve to know why a completed bridge is still closed.