LANSING, Mich. — A 1945 law repeatedly used by Gov. Gretcher Whitmer to respond to the coronavirus pandemic was declared unconstitutional Friday by the Michigan Supreme Court, a striking decision that puts months of restrictions in jeopardy while COVID-19 continues to flare up around the state.
The opinion is an extraordinary development in a monthslong conflict between Whitmer, a Democrat, and Republicans who control the Legislature and have complained that they’ve been shut out of major orders that have impacted education, the economy and health care.
The governor said the 4-3 decision, with Republican-nominated justices in the majority, was “deeply disappointing.” But Whitmer didn’t signal that she was giving up. She said her emergency declaration and related orders still can remain in place for 21 days, and then many of them will continue “under alternative sources” of law.
Whitmer didn’t elaborate, but it’s possible that her administration will act under public health statutes.
“Every state and the federal government have some form of declared emergency,” she said. “With this decision, Michigan will become the sole outlier at a time when the Upper Peninsula is experiencing rates of COVID infection not seen in our state since April.”
For nearly seven months, Whitmer has imposed - and sometimes eased - restrictions on Michigan’s economy, K-12 school system, health care and even visits to state parks, all in an attempt to reduce the risk of the highly contagious virus, which has infected 126,000 residents and killed more than 6,700.
Masks are required in enclosed public spaces and in crowded outdoor places. Restaurant capacity is limited to 50%. People must work remotely if they can, and indoor residential gatherings are capped at no more than 10 people.
Republican officials said Whitmer should have continued to use a 1976 law, which gives lawmakers a say in any emergency declarations after 28 days.
“That act is an unlawful delegation of legislative power to the executive branch in violation of the Michigan Constitution,” Justice Stephen Markman wrote. “Accordingly, the executive orders issued by the governor in response to the COVID-19 pandemic now lack any basis under Michigan law.”
In a dissent, Chief Justice Bridget McCormack said she would have let the law stand, even if it gives a governor sole authority to “exercise the whole of the state’s police power in some emergencies.”
Lawmakers could repeal the law or amend it, and frustrated residents could sue if they don’t agree with specific orders, McCormack said.
“The majority needlessly inserts the court into what has become an emotionally charged political dispute,” McCormack wrote, joined by justices Richard Bernstein and Megan Cavanagh.
The case reached the Supreme Court in an uncommon way. A federal judge overseeing a lawsuit that makes state and federal claims about Whitmer’s powers asked for an opinion on the constitutionality of the Michigan laws.
In a footnote to his opinion, Markman offered an optimistic message.
“Our decision leaves open many avenues for the governor and Legislature to work together to address this challenge and we hope that this will take place,” he said.
• White reported from Detroit.
Copyright © 2020 The Washington Times, LLC.