Conflict of Michigan Acts regarding State of Emergency Duration & Extension

P

perchance

New Member
Jurisdiction
Michigan
in Michigan, there seems to be a conflict of two state acts that grant authority to the governor to declare a state of emergency. specifically at question right now, is the limitation of the duration of the declared state of emergency:

Emergency Management Act, 1976 PA 390 limits the duration of a state of emergency declared by the governor to 28 days, after which the state of emergency may be extended by a specified amount of time if approved by legislation.

Emergency Powers of the Governor Act of 1945, 1945 PA 302 gives the governor the power to declare a state of emergency and does not limit the duration of the state of emergency.

i understand that michigan legislature can vote to repeal one of the two laws, but that seems very unlikely. the governor could veto and thus require 2/3 majority vote to override the veto... so, in the near term, i dont see legislation as a viable solution to this issue in a timely manner.

can a michigan court make an enforceable ruling regarding the state of emergency? basically, could our court decide which act to follow - the 1945 or the 1976? ...and then tell businesses that they are free to open their doors to the public without risking any fines (or legal orders?) from the michigan government?

im curious how something like this is handled by the legal system that is in place.
 
I have not read the two acts you mention, but I wonder if they specify different types of emergencies. Some types limited, others not.
Also, one might specifically have repealed or modified the other.

perchance said:
can a michigan court make an enforceable ruling regarding the state of emergency?
Click to expand...

The emergency declaration almost certainly cited which authority it is invoking. The court would look to that.

Many people around the country are defying these orders and staying in business. Some have received citations. Whether these citations will hold up and have to be paid will be for courts to decide down the road.

https://www.fresnobee.com/news/business/article242390351.html

Dallas salon owner who ripped up cease-and-desist letter says she'll stay open despite risk of arrest
 
Last edited:
mightymoose said:
Many people around the country are defying these orders and staying in business. Some have received citations. Whether these citations will hold up and have to be paid will be for courts to decide down the road.
Click to expand...

And that answers the OP's question.

perchance said:
im curious how something like this is handled by the legal system that is in place.
Click to expand...

Many of these citations will be fought in court and somebody that received them is going to have the money and willingness to push it through the appeals process if they lose in the lower courts. Maybe we will get a SCOTUS ruling on the matter a few years from now.
 
perchance said:
i understand that michigan legislature can vote to repeal one of the two laws, but that seems very unlikely. the governor could veto and thus require 2/3 majority vote to override the veto... so, in the near term, i dont see legislation as a viable solution to this issue in a timely manner.
Click to expand...

If the legislature fails to approve the law, that stymies Empress Whitmer, not the legislature.


perchance said:
can a michigan court make an enforceable ruling regarding the state of emergency? basically, could our court decide which act to follow - the 1945 or the 1976? ...and then tell businesses that they are free to open their doors to the public without risking any fines (or legal orders?) from the michigan government?
Click to expand...

Yes, Michigan Court can, or a federal court could, too.

That is, if an impacted party pursues the matter.

Your legislature indicated it's willingness to take the dispute to court.
 

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top