Associated Builders and Contractors v. City of Lansing, 499 Mich. 177

Lansing enacted Ordinance §206.18(a) requiring contractors on city-funded construction to pay a prevailing wage tied to federal Dept. of Labor statistics for the Lansing area.
Associated Builders & Contractors (plaintiff) sued, arguing municipalities lack authority to regulate wages paid by third-party contractors on municipal projects, relying on this Court’s 1923 decision Attorney General ex rel. Lennane v. Detroit.
The trial court granted summary disposition for plaintiff, citing Lennane, though noting Lennane’s age.
A divided Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, concluding Lennane was effectively superseded by later developments and the 1963 Constitution; one judge dissented that only the Supreme Court may overrule Lennane.
The Michigan Supreme Court granted leave, held that the Court of Appeals exceeded its authority by disregarding binding Supreme Court precedent, but overruled Lennane itself based on the 1963 Constitution’s expanded and liberalized home-rule provisions.
The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals opinion (for disregarding precedent) but affirmed the practical result: cities may regulate wages in municipal contracts under Const 1963, art. 7, §22, and §34.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lansing may require prevailing wages for contractors on municipal projects	Municipalities lack power to regulate third-party wages; Lennane bars such local regulation	1963 Constitution and subsequent law expanded municipal authority so Lennane no longer controls	Court overruled Lennane and held cities may adopt such ordinances under Const 1963, art. 7, §22 (and §34)
Whether the Court of Appeals lawfully declined to follow Lennane	N/A (plaintiff relied on Lennane)	Court of Appeals treated Lennane as superseded by later law	Court: Court of Appeals erred — only this Court may overrule precedent; lower courts must follow Supreme Court decisions until changed by this Court or clear supersession
Whether Lennane remains good law after the 1963 Constitution	Lennane still controls because language ‘‘relating to municipal concerns’’ appears in both constitutions	1963 Constitution’s express grant and liberal-construction directive undercut Lennane	Supreme Court concluded Lennane is no longer viable and overruled it based on the 1963 constitutional text and purpose
Whether state law preempts municipal prevailing-wage ordinances	Plaintiff argued state control of wages precludes municipal action (per Lennane)	Lansing pointed to legislative silence/omission and no express preemption	Court: No express preemption shown; municipalities can set contract terms subject to constitution and law

Attorney General ex rel. Lennane v. Detroit, 225 Mich 631 (1923) (held municipalities could not regulate wages on municipal contracts under 1908 Constitution)
Associated Builders & Contractors v. City of Lansing, 305 Mich App 395 (2014) (Court of Appeals panel decision reversing trial court; majority found Lennane obsolete)
Detroit v. Walker, 445 Mich 682 (1994) (discusses broad home-rule powers under the 1963 Constitution)
Rental Property Owners Ass’n of Kent Co. v. Grand Rapids, 455 Mich 246 (1997) (recognizes broad municipal powers under home rule)
AFSCME v. Detroit, 468 Mich 388 (2003) (addresses municipal authority and home-rule scope)
Robinson v. Detroit, 462 Mich 439 (2000) (explains when prior decisions may be treated as obsolete given changes in law)
Boyd v. W G Wade Shows, 443 Mich 515 (1993) (Court of Appeals must follow Supreme Court precedent even if it believes the precedent is wrong)
City of Taylor v. Detroit Edison Co., 475 Mich 109 (2006) (local governments have only delegated powers; discusses limits on municipal authority)
Kalamazoo v. Titus, 208 Mich 252 (1919) (early case cited in Lennane discussing limits on municipal legislative subjects)