Isabella Carter
Michigan's stay-at-home orders, imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic, have been the subject of legal challenges, with residents arguing that the orders infringe on their constitutional rights. The state's Court of Claims ruled that the orders do not violate citizens' constitutional rights, rejecting requests for preliminary injunctions. The court's decision highlighted the temporary nature of the restrictions and the severity of the public health crisis, emphasizing the primary goal of protecting human life. This ruling is part of a broader debate surrounding stay-at-home orders and individual freedoms during a global pandemic.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Date of ruling | 29 April 2020 |
| Court | Michigan Court of Claims |
| Judge | Christopher Murray |
| Ruling | Michigan's stay-at-home orders do not violate citizens' constitutional rights |
| Number of confirmed cases in Michigan at the time | 40,399 |
| Number of deaths in Michigan at the time | 3,670 |
| Plaintiffs | Five Michigan residents, including Steve Martinko |
| Defendants | Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Attorney General Dana Nessel, and Department of Natural Resources Director Daniel Eichinger |
| Plaintiffs' arguments | The "mandatory quarantine" and in-state travel restrictions violate due process rights; the Emergency Management Act is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the governor |
| Defendants' arguments | The stay-at-home order does not provide the governor with "uncontrolled, arbitrary power"; the act lays out specific criteria for declaring a disaster or emergency |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- Michigan's stay-at-home orders do not infringe on constitutional rights, according to a judge
- A Michigan judge ruled that the stay-at-home order does temporary harm to constitutional rights but doesn't outweigh the public health risk
- A lawsuit was filed against Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's lockdown, but a judge threw it out, saying it didn't infringe on constitutional rights
- The Emergency Management Act was challenged as an unconstitutional delegation of power to the governor, but the court disagreed
- The Stay Home, Stay Safe order has been
Michigan's stay-at-home orders do not infringe on constitutional rights, according to a judge
Michigan's stay-at-home orders, imposed during the coronavirus outbreak, do not infringe on constitutional rights, according to a ruling by Court of Claims Judge Christopher Murray. The ruling threw out a lawsuit filed against Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and denied granting an injunction of her stay-at-home order.
Judge Murray said the plaintiffs' claims that the order infringed on their constitutional rights were not strong enough due to the severity of COVID-19. He stated that granting an injunction against Whitmer's order "would not serve the public interest, despite the temporary harm to plaintiffs' constitutional rights." Murray ruled that the act does not provide the governor with "uncontrolled, arbitrary power."
The plaintiffs in the suit had alleged that Governor Gretchen Whitmer's "Stay Home, Stay Safe" order, among the strictest in the nation, infringed on their right to due process. They argued that by suspending the Freedom of Information Act through June 4, Whitmer stymied efforts to assess whether the models that predict COVID-19 case and death counts in Michigan are sound. The plaintiffs also included a residential brokerage, an executive property maintenance company, and an exporter of architectural and automotive glass.
The Michigan Court of Claims rejected the allegations, ruling that constitutional rights are fundamental but not absolute, and under extraordinary circumstances, they may be restricted. The court said that the Emergency Management Act does not provide the governor with uncontrolled power, but rather lays out specific criteria for declaring a disaster or emergency. The court's decision was praised by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, who said, "The primary goal of the Stay Home, Stay Safe order has always been to protect human life."
Understanding the US Constitution: An Introductory Guide
You may want to see also
A Michigan judge ruled that the stay-at-home order does temporary harm to constitutional rights but doesn't outweigh the public health risk
Michigan's stay-at-home orders, imposed by Governor Gretchen Whitmer, have been the subject of intense debate and legal challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. The state's residents and businesses have questioned the constitutionality of these orders, arguing that their rights and liberties are being infringed upon.
In April 2020, a group of five Michigan residents, including Steve Martinko, an Oakland County landscaping business owner, filed a lawsuit against Governor Whitmer and other state officials. They claimed that the stay-at-home order and the ""mandatory quarantine"" violated their constitutional rights, particularly their right to due process. The plaintiffs argued that the governor should have only quarantined people infected with COVID-19 and that the restrictions should have been limited to certain regions within the state.
However, Michigan Court of Claims Judge Christopher Murray ruled against the plaintiffs, stating that the stay-at-home order did not infringe upon their constitutional rights. While Judge Murray acknowledged that the order caused ""temporary harm"" to the constitutional rights of Michigan residents, he emphasized that this harm was outweighed by the public health risk posed by the COVID-19 outbreak. He asserted that the order was implemented to protect human life and serve the public interest.
In his ruling, Judge Murray rejected the notion that the Emergency Management Act granted the governor ""uncontrolled, arbitrary power."" Instead, he clarified that the act provided specific criteria for declaring a state of emergency or disaster. Additionally, he highlighted that constitutional rights, while fundamental, are not absolute and may be subject to restrictions under extraordinary circumstances, such as a public health crisis.
The decision by Judge Murray was welcomed by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, who emphasized the severity of the pandemic and the primary goal of protecting human life. The ruling underscored the delicate balance between individual liberties and the broader interests of society during unprecedented public health challenges.
Founding Fathers: Slavery, Constitution, and Complicated Legacies
You may want to see also
A lawsuit was filed against Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's lockdown, but a judge threw it out, saying it didn't infringe on constitutional rights
Michigan's stay-at-home orders, imposed during the coronavirus outbreak, have been the centre of debate, garnering both praise and criticism. In April 2020, five Michigan residents, including Steve Martinko, owner of an Oakland County landscaping business, filed a lawsuit against Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's lockdown of the state. The plaintiffs claimed that the "mandatory quarantine" and in-state travel restrictions violated their constitutional rights and due process rights, and that Whitmer should have only quarantined people who had the virus or imposed restrictions on certain regions of the state.
Court of Claims Judge Christopher Murray ruled in favour of Whitmer, Attorney General Dana Nessel, and Department of Natural Resources Director Daniel Eichinger, stating that the stay-at-home order did not infringe on constitutional rights. While acknowledging that the order caused temporary harm to the plaintiffs' constitutional rights, Murray emphasised that this harm did not outweigh the public health risk posed by the coronavirus outbreak. He further asserted that granting injunctive relief would not serve the public interest and that the Emergency Management Act did not provide the governor with "uncontrolled, arbitrary power."
Subsequently, in May 2022, a federal judge dismissed another lawsuit against Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, who was accused of allowing Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to use a loophole to exceed fundraising limits. This decision was also appealed by the Republican Party.
The Constitution's Text: A Guide to its Organization
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Emergency Management Act was challenged as an unconstitutional delegation of power to the governor, but the court disagreed
Michigan's stay-at-home orders, first put in place on March 24, 2020, were challenged in court by five Michigan residents, including Steve Martinko, owner of an Oakland County landscaping business, and four other Michigan residents. The lawsuit claimed that the orders infringed on their constitutional rights and should be declared invalid. The plaintiffs also challenged the Emergency Management Act as an unconstitutional delegation of power to the governor, alleging that it gave the governor "uncontrolled, arbitrary power."
However, the Court of Claims Judge Christopher Murray ruled that the stay-at-home orders did not infringe on constitutional rights and that the Emergency Management Act was not an unconstitutional delegation of power. Judge Murray acknowledged that the orders caused temporary harm to the constitutional rights of Michigan residents but emphasized that this harm was outweighed by the public health risk posed by the COVID-19 outbreak.
In his ruling, Judge Murray disagreed with the plaintiffs' characterization of the Emergency Management Act, stating that it did not provide the governor with uncontrolled and arbitrary power. He asserted that the act laid out specific provisions and instructions for the governor to follow. Additionally, Judge Murray highlighted the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic, which had already claimed over 3,600 lives in Michigan at the time of the ruling.
The ruling emphasized the role of the executive and legislative branches in determining the necessary steps during a public health crisis. It is worth noting that the stay-at-home orders were not without controversy, as they garnered both praise and criticism, with some lawmakers expressing disagreement with certain aspects of the orders. However, Judge Murray's decision ultimately prioritized public health and safety, concluding that the stay-at-home orders were a reasonable exercise of the governor's power to protect the well-being of Michigan residents during an unprecedented global pandemic.
Understanding Article 2's Main Focus and Its Importance
You may want to see also
The Stay Home, Stay Safe order has been criticised for not being based on proven data about the virus.
The Stay Home, Stay Safe order has been criticised for not being based on proven data about the virus. The order was first put in place on March 24, 2020, suspending activities "not necessary to sustain or protect life". The COVID-19 pandemic has had devastating effects on the lives of people around the world, and social scientists are only just beginning to understand its consequences on human behaviour.
The lockdown-style order was implemented by public health officials to help stop the spread of the virus. However, critics argue that there is a lack of systematic examination of how the virus and the stay-at-home orders have impacted crime. While there is some evidence of a short-term spike in domestic violence cases in the two weeks following the lockdown, it is difficult to attribute this increase solely to the lockdown, as the trend was already on an upward trajectory before the order was implemented.
The order has faced resistance and sparked protests, with some arguing that it infringes on their constitutional rights. A group of Michigan residents, including Steve Martinko, an Oakland County landscaping business owner, filed a lawsuit against the governor and other state officials. They claimed that the "mandatory quarantine" and in-state travel restrictions violated their due process rights. However, Michigan Court of Claims Judge Christopher Murray ruled in favour of the state, acknowledging the temporary harm to constitutional rights but emphasising that it did not outweigh the public health risk posed by the pandemic.
The debate surrounding the Stay Home, Stay Safe order highlights the complex balance between protecting public health and preserving individual liberties during a crisis. While the order has been criticised for lacking conclusive data, the unprecedented nature of the pandemic poses challenges in predicting and managing its impact.
Children of US Citizens: Are They Automatically Citizens?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Michigan's stay-at-home orders do not violate citizens' constitutional rights, according to Michigan's Court of Claims.
Yes, the judge ruled that an injunction against the order "would not serve the public interest, despite the temporary harm to plaintiffs' constitutional rights."
There were mixed reactions to the stay-at-home orders in Michigan. While some protested against the orders, others complied with the safety measures.
![Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61R-n2y0Q8L._AC_UL320_.jpg)
![Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61qrQ6YZVOL._AC_UL320_.jpg)
![Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/711lR4w+ZNL._AC_UL320_.jpg)
