It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The governor does not have authority under either of the state’s emergency statutes to continue the coronavirus state of emergency, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled 4-3 in questions related to a federal case on Friday.
“We conclude that the Governor lacked the authority to declare a ‘state of emergency’ or a ‘state of disaster’ under the EMA after April 30, 2020, on the basis of the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, we conclude that the EPGA is in violation of the Constitution of our state because it purports to delegate to the executive branch the legislative powers of state government-- including its plenary police powers-- and to allow the exercise of such powers indefinitely," wrote Justice Stephen J. Markman in the majority opinion.
“As a consequence, the EPGA cannot continue to provide a basis for the Governor to exercise emergency powers.”
originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Nyiah
This will not make many of those who are unemployed happy. Without a state of emergency, the governor can withhold unemployment benefits from certain groups of people, namely the self-employed.
The Supreme Court ruling came just hours after Whitmer exercised her disputed powers, ordering a series of business restrictions in response to surging coronavirus cases in the Upper Peninsula. It’s unclear whether that order now stands.
The order "effectively" invalidates Whitmer's executive orders, "but it may take the formality of further action by the federal court," said Steven Liedel, a government policy attorney at the Dykema law firm.
"The ability [for Whitmer] to move forward and enforce those orders in any meaningful way is going to be affected," said Liedel, who served as legal counsel to former Gov. Jennifer Granholm.