Michigan Supreme Court Sets Limits on Emergency Powers of 总督: Impacts on Residents and Businesses

2020年10月4日 冠状病毒资源中心:返回业务 博客
作者: 史蒂芬·H·希尔芬格 罗伯特·内德胡德 安·玛丽·埃茨(Ann Marie Uetz) 尼古拉斯·J·埃利斯 克里斯托弗·A·德根纳罗 肯尼斯·约翰逊

2020年10月2日,密歇根州最高法院发布了 地标性意见 (“Opinion”) limiting 总督 Gretchen Whitmer’有权发布和更新与COVID-19大流行相关的行政命令。  The Court answered two questions of law posed to it by a federal court in Michigan, which was reviewing the authority relied upon by 总督 Whitmer to issue executive orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The case is 中西部卫生研究院PLLC诉Whitmer , pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. In the much-anticipated 意见, the Court held that:

  1. 总督 Whitmer did not have authority to issue or renew any executive orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic under the 1976年紧急管理法 (“EMA”) (MCL § 30.401, 2020年4月30日– the date through which the Legislature extended 总督 Whitmer’紧急状态和灾难状态声明;和

  2. 总督 Whitmer did not possess authority to exercise emergency powers under the Emergency Powers of the 总督 Act of 1945 (“EPGA”),因为EPGA违反密歇根州宪法,将立法权非法授予行政部门。 

As a result, businesses and individuals in Michigan need to know the impact of the 意见 on the 总督’s executive orders, including requirements for face masks, business operations, and other actions. This Client Alert provides a brief summary of the 意见 and an initial commentary on its effect, as well as what to expect next.

中西部卫生研究院,PLLC诉Whitmer等。

Plaintiff medical providers and patient brought suit against 总督 Whitmer and others, challenging Executive Order (“EO”) 2020-17, which prohibited healthcare providers from performing nonessential medical procedures. EO 2020-17 was issued by the 总督 as part of a series of executive orders in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.1

惠特默州长 2020年3月10日发布的EO 2020-04宣布“state of emergency”符合EPGA和EMA。 2020年4月1日,总督发布了2020-33号总统令,宣布“state of emergency”根据EPGA和“state of emergency” and “state of disaster”根据EMA。惠特默州长随后要求立法机关将紧急状态和灾难状态声明的期限延长70天。  In response, the Legislature adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 2020-24, extending the 紧急状态 and 灾难状态 only through April 30, 2020. 

Next, on April 30, 2020, 总督 Whitmer issued EO 2020-66, which terminated the declaration of a 紧急状态 and 灾难状态 under the EMA.  However, the 总督 also issued EO 2020-67, ordering that a 紧急状态 remained 根据EPGA. At the same time, the 总督 also issued EO 2020-68, which re-declared a 紧急状态 and 灾难状态 under the EMA.

认识到 PLLC中西部卫生研究院 提出了密歇根州法律极其重要的问题,联邦地方法院“certified” two questions to the Michigan Supreme Court to determine whether the 总督 was lawfully authorized to issue the emergency orders, which the Michigan Supreme Court answered in the negative.

1976年紧急管理法

在长达48页的多数意见中,斯蒂芬·马克曼(Stephen Markman)大法官为一致通过的法院作了解释,他说’每28天重新宣布紧急情况和灾难状态的决定实际上使EMA中规定的立法批准要求无效,因此是非法的。法院在解释规约时认为,“Governor’s declaration of a 紧急状态 or 灾难状态 may only endure for 28 days absent legislative approval for an extension.”   

Emergency Powers of the 总督 Act of 1945

关于州长惠特默(Whitmer)的权威依据– the EPGA –在4-3的分歧中,密歇根州最高法院裁定,EPGA是不允许的权力下放,这违反了《密歇根州宪法》,其中包括管理州长行使职权的唯一标准’紧急权力是“reasonable” and “necessary,”两者都不会对州长产生实质性的限制’的动作。首席法官布里奇特·玛丽·麦考马克(Bridget Mary McCormack)为持不同政见者写信,同意了马尔卡曼大法官对EMA的看法,但得出的结论是,EPGA在其标准和法规一样合理的范围内,没有违反非授权原则。’允许的主题。

这对密歇根州的居民和企业意味着什么?

该意见对密歇根州居民和企业的影响尚不完全清楚。根据总督’在此办公室,该意见在21天内无效。在对延误21天的法律依据提出质疑的同时,州长于10月5日向密歇根州最高法院提出了一项动议,要求法院延期’该法案的有效期至10月30日,以使总督有时间从先前的行政命令过渡。总督可能会寻求重新考虑或澄清该意见,这也可能会延迟其生效。但这很明显:密歇根州最高法院已裁定EMA和EPGA均未为总督提供法律依据’的行政命令。人们普遍期望总督会审查现有的行政命令,以确定哪些(如果有的话), 可能会重新发行 在不同或狭窄的权限下–例如根据《公共卫生法》。因此,例如,总督是否可以根据《公共卫生法》发布行政命令以强制要求口罩,限制业务运营并施加社会疏远规则,还是要求可以远程完成工作的员工进行远程工作仍有待观察。同时,我们期望州长和立法领导层将尝试就国家的适当范围达成协议 ’对COVID-19健康危机的持续响应。最后,根据《意见》,地方政府部门(例如县,市或乡镇)可能仍会提出自己的要求。例如,奥克兰郡的卫生官员已经宣布了一项要求在公共场所使用口罩的命令,并表示可能会下达其他命令,以覆盖餐馆,酒吧,员工健康检查和其他公共卫生问题。

同时,企业应开始审查针对COVID-19流行病和总督采取的政策范围’的先前行政命令,包括确定在不恢复或替换现有行政命令的情况下是否可以或应该进行调整。总体而言,在立即做出变更之前,企业应保持谨慎,尤其是在现有流程不妨碍运营的情况下,除非对企业进行进一步的澄清,否则尤其如此。“new”密歇根州最高法院之后的监管格局’s decision. 立法机关向州长提出的密歇根州最高法院的另一起案件’发出行政命令的权力可能会进一步阐明程序,并参与正在进行的谈判。  And finally, all of this is happening against the backdrop of an election, which may also impact future developments (including the makeup of the Michigan Supreme Court, with two seats on the ballot). 佛利 will continue to monitor all of these developments and update this report as developments occur.

Companies in all sectors of the economy continue to be impacted by COVID-19. 佛利 is here to help our clients effectively address the short- and long-term impacts on their business interests, operations, and objectives. 佛利 provides insights and strategies across multiple industries and disciplines to deliver timely perspectives on the wide range of legal and business challenges that companies face conducting business while dealing with the impact of the coronavirus. 点击这里 通过我们今天发表的重要出版物来保持最新和领先’的挑战和明天’的机会。要直接在收件箱中接收此内容, 点击这里 and submit the form.

-------------------------------------------------- --------------------------

1 尽管《 2020-17年EO条例》已废除,但联邦地方法院认为此案尚无定论,因为随后的行政命令对医疗保健提供者施加了限制。

该博客由Foley提供& Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey 该公司’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of 佛利 & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with 佛利 through this 网站 by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to 佛利 through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. 佛利 makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. 佛利 expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall 佛利 or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party 网站s or the information, resources or material accessed through any such 网站s. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

相关服务

见解

FedRAMP帮助安全的云部署!
2021年1月16日
互联网,IT& e-Discovery 博客
OCR HIPAA审计发现的关键发现和要点
2021年1月15日
今日卫生保健法
一项新议程:预计2021年美国环境政策将发生重大变化
2021年1月14日
2020选举资源中心
第14集:经济学101:了解反托拉斯和提供者交易的工具
2021年1月14日
今日卫生保健法
Telehealth21峰会虚拟会议
2021年3月23日至24日
虚拟会议
美国中风协会国际中风会议
2021年3月17-19日
虚拟会议
校园能源资产货币化
多个日期
网络研讨会系列
佛罗里达律师协会健康法科高级健康法主题与认证审查2021
2021年3月10日
网络研讨会