DETROIT _ The Michigan Supreme Court has denied Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's request to delay the effective date of its decision that ruled the law underpinning Whitmer's executive orders was unconstitutional.
In a separate Monday order, the high court also ruled 4-3 that Whitmer's orders issued under the 1945 Emergency Powers of the Governor Act "are of no continuing legal effect." The majority consisted of Republican-nominated justices Stephen Markman, Brian Zahra, David Viviano and Beth Clement, who formed the majority who earlier ruled the 1945 law was an unconstitutional granting of legislative authority to the governor's office.
Neither of Monday's rulings appears to affect Whitmer's authority through the state health department to issue other public health orders related to the coronavirus pandemic.
The ruling on the effective date the high court's decision was issued after the Michigan Legislature asked the court to apply its Oct. 2 order to their case, which was separate from a federal judge's request that the Supreme Court declare the constitutionality of the 1945 law for a case he is deciding.
"It should again be emphasized," the Michigan court said, that the decision "leaves open many avenues for our Governor and the Legislature to work together in a cooperative spirit and constitutional manner to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic."
Justice Megan Cavanagh, in a dissent joined by Chief Justice Mary McCormack, maintained that the 1945 law was constitutional and argued that the court's order should not be given immediate effect in the Legislature's case. Both are Democratic-nominated justices.
Since the Supreme Court's Oct. 2 ruling, Whitmer's Department of Health and Human Services has put in place epidemic orders that replace the governor's larger public health policies, such as mask mandates, employee health screenings and capacity restrictions at restaurants.
The Republican-controlled Legislature is working to pass bills that reinstate unemployment extensions issued under the Democratic governor's executive orders.
In a separate case Monday, the high court ruled 6-1 it could not delay the effective date of the court's decision to Oct. 30, as Whitmer had requested. The court's four Republican-nominated justices were joined by McCormack and Cavanagh.
The way in which the order was issued _ in answer to a certified question from a Grand Rapids federal district court _ does not provide a way to challenge the ruling in the Supreme Court, McCormack wrote in a concurring opinion joined by Cavanagh. There was no "precedential effect" for the court to delay, she wrote.
"And even if it were possible for us to grant the relief sought by the defendants, to do so in this case would be a purely academic exercise," McCormack said, given Monday's 4-3 decision on the immediate effect of the Oct. 2 ruling.
The lone dissenter in that case, Justice Richard Bernstein, argued that the court's Oct. 2 order should have never had immediate effect.
" ... a delay here could only allow the governor and the Legislature the time to better prepare for an appropriate transition," wrote Bernstein, a Democratic-nominated justice.
McCormack, Cavanagh and Bernstein did not side with their Republican-nominated colleagues in the 4-3 decision to overturn the 1945 Emergency Powers of the Governor Act.
But the court did rule unanimously that the governor was unable to extend her emergency authority past April 30 without the approval of the GOP-led Legislature.
