The Michigan Supreme Court sided Monday with the Macomb County Board of Commissioners, overturning lower court rulings in a years-long budgeting tiff between the board and Macomb County Executive Mark Hackel.

The battle between Hackel, a Democrat, and the board dates back to 2017, when the Republican-majority board adopted an ordinance that required Hackel to provide the commission’s director of legislative affairs with real-time, read-only access to the county’s integrated financial software program. Hackel refused to do so, kicking off litigation between the county leaders.

Hackel’s attorney argued in court earlier this year that the executive was operating within the authority afforded to his position and that a decision blocking him from doing so would undermine the authority of county executives across the state.

But the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Elizabeth Welch, found that Macomb County’s charter and ordinances gave the commission legal authority to view real-time, read-only financial information.

The plain language of the ordinance, Welch wrote, “requires the county executive to provide the commission or its agent with access to real-time, read-only access to the financial software program used by the county,” Welch wrote. Michigan Supreme Court Justice Noah Hood, who was appointed in April, did not participate in Monday’s order.

The decision reversed an earlier ruling by the Michigan Court of Appeals and sent the case back to Macomb County Circuit Court for proceedings consistent with the order.

In a separate order Monday, the high court rejected leave to appeal in a case filed by Macomb County Prosecutor Peter Lucido against the county executive.

Hackel’s dispute with Lucido, a Republican, arises from the November 2023 budget process, when the county commission approved a budget that included $42,500 for independent legal services for Lucido’s office. The money would allow Lucido to retain outside legal counsel to represent his office instead of solely relying on the county’s own legal office — the corporation counsel, who reports to Hackel.

Hackel vetoed the appropriation in December 2023, the county commission voted to override the veto and, in January, the commission approved the legal services for five law firms.

Hackel refused to sign the contracts for the services, leading Lucido to file suit.

The Court of Appeals last year directed Hackel to give the money to Lucido and told the parties to “work together to facilitate the appropriate contracts.”

The Supreme Court’s rejection of the appeal Monday means that the Court of Appeals opinion remains in place.

Welch concurred with the high court’s decision to deny leave to appeal, but argued the county’s charter limited spending on outside legal counsel “only for the purpose of commencing litigation to seek relief.”

“Thus, while the appropriation to fund independent legal counsel was certainly lawful, I question whether the resolution that authorized legal contracts solely for ‘prelitigation services’ is lawful if the prosecutor does not intend to proactively commence litigation,” Welch wrote.

Hood also did not participate in the suit involving Lucido and Hackel.