Opinion ID: 849204
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Court Consideration of the Legislature's Motives

Text: In one of the three concurring opinions joining the majority, my colleague emphasize[s] that the Legislature's subjective motivation for making a $1,000,000 appropriation in Act 381 is irrelevant. Chief Justice Corrigan's op. at 298. In my view, this is an unfortunate exaggeration. I acknowledge that, as a general rule, courts do not inquire into the motives of the Legislature in passing legislation. See Young v. Ann Arbor, 267 Mich. 241, 243, 255 N.W. 579 (1934). However, [c]ourts are not supposed to be blinded bats. Todd v. Hull, 288 Mich. 521, 543, 285 N.W. 46 (1939) (opinion of Bushnell, J.), quoting State ex rel Pollock v. Becker, 289 Mo. 660, 684, 233 S.W. 641, 646 (1921). [13] Hence, I would not be so quick to eliminate categorically the possibility that this Court may consider, where pertinent, relevant, and ascertainable, the Legislature's motives in enacting a statute.