Judge blocks stadium funding in case challenging Michigan earmark process

Two baseball stadium earmarks are on hold after a court of claims judge found they could be unconstitutional
The case could have big implications for billions spent on lawmaker-sponsored grants in recent years
It’s not yet clear how far reaching the ruling’s effects could be

LANSING — In a case that could have major implications for Michigan budget earmarks, a state judge on Tuesday blocked two state grants for baseball stadium renovations on the grounds they may be unconstitutional.

The two earmarks, approved by lawmakers to fund renovations at Jackson Field in Lansing and Jimmy John’s Field in Utica, were put on hold by Court of Claims judge Michael Gadola while the case continues to play out.

The Michigan Constitution requires that any public funding for “local or private purposes” must be approved by two-thirds of all lawmakers. The Mackinac Center for Public Policy sued the state, arguing the grants should’ve been required to meet the same bar.

The injunction — which is not a final ruling on the case — does not immediately affect the billions of dollars in earmarks passed by lawmakers in recent years, which often fund projects with local impact, such as the redevelopment of a vacant hotel in Mount Clemens and new playgrounds and a cricket field in city parks.

The Mackinac Center had a “compelling argument” that the earmarks “were for the benefit of the cities and counties where they are located rather than for the state as a whole,” Gadola wrote in the order.

“The idea that fans from other areas of the state or Midwest may come to Jackson Field on occasion does not change the fact that the grant to the ballpark will primarily benefit Lansing and Ingham County,” he added.

Related:

Michigan’s 2025 budget provided $1.5 million to privately-owned Jimmy John’s Field and $1 million to Jackson Field, which is run by a public entity owned by the city of Lansing.

The grants were added to the budget with a rhetorical trick that officials have used to bypass the supermajority vote requirement for local projects: They set aside money for stadiums within cities and counties with specific population ranges, narrowing eligibility to lawmakers’ intended projects.

That format “disguises local purposes as general ones by using descriptors that seem open-ended in nature but could only apply to two specific ballparks,” Gadola wrote.

The Mackinac Center, which has long questioned the earmark process, celebrated the injunction.

“This ruling is a major victory for Michigan taxpayers and the rule of law,” said Patrick Wright, vice president for legal affairs at the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation. “The court’s decision prevents additional unconstitutional spending while this case proceeds.”

It’s not yet clear what the case could mean for other earmarks included in past or future budgets.

In his opinion, Gadola drew a contrast between the stadium grants and prior funding for the Detroit Institute of Arts, illustrating that geography is not the only factor to consider and noting the museum is “a widely acclaimed cultural facility with a prominence reaching far beyond the city of Detroit and a cultural significance that benefits all Michiganders.”

At the behest of state House Republicans, lawmakers last year reformed the earmark process, requiring legislators to publicly disclose their requests well ahead of budget votes and also name the beneficiaries of the funding.

Two earmarks added to a state budget in 2022 have resulted in criminal charges in the last year.

Attorney General Dana Nessel’s office alleges a former legislative aide embezzled part of a $25 million grant meant to create a health park in Clare, and she announced charges last week against a businesswoman accused of misusing part of a $20 million grant for an international business accelerator.