Opinion
SC: 161917 COA: 353655
10-12-2020
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES and Senate, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GOVERNOR, Defendant-Appellee.
Order
On order of the Court, the motions for immediate consideration are GRANTED. The motion for peremptory reversal is considered and, for the reasons stated in this Court's decision in In re Certified Questions from the United States Dist. Court , ––– Mich. ––––, ––– N.W.2d ––––, 2020 WL 5877599 (Docket No. 161492, October 2, 2020), is GRANTED. We REVERSE that part of the judgment of the Court of Appeals holding that the Governor possesses the authority to issue executive orders under the Emergency Powers of the Governor Act, MCL 10.31 et seq. As stated in In re Certified Questions , the Emergency Powers of the Governor Act is incompatible with the Constitution of our state, and therefore, executive orders issued under that act are of no continuing legal effect. This order is effective upon entry. MCR 7.315(D). We REMAND this case to the Court of Claims for the immediate entry of an order granting declaratory relief consistent with this order.
It should again be emphasized, see In re Certified Questions , ––– Mich. at –––– n. 1, ––– N.W.2d ––––, slip op. at 3 n. 1, that our decision today, like our decision in In re Certified Questions , leaves open many avenues for our Governor and Legislature to work together in a cooperative spirit and constitutional manner to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.
McCormack, C.J. (dissenting).
For the reasons already set forth in my opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in In re Certified Questions from the United States Dist. Court , ––– Mich. ––––, ––– N.W.2d ––––, 2020 WL 5877599 (Docket No. 161492, October 2, 2020) ( MCCORMACK , C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), I dissent from the majority's order reversing the Court of Appeals in this case. I do not believe the Emergency Powers of the Governor Act, MCL 10.31 et seq. , is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power under any reasonable reading of our (or the United States Supreme Court's) nondelegation jurisprudence. Indeed, that's why the majority had to rely so heavily on Justice Gorsuch's nonbinding dissenting opinion in Gundy v. United States , 588 U.S. ––––, ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2116, 2131, 204 L. Ed. 2d 522 (2019) (Gorsuch, J., dissenting).
Finally, while I do not believe there is any rule that permits the Court to delay its answer to the certified questions, see In re Certified Questions from the United States Dist. Court , ––– Mich. ––––, ––– N.W.2d ––––, 2020 WL 6038886 (Docket No. 161492, October 12, 2020) ( MCCORMACK , C.J., concurring), I would not give the decision in this separate case immediate effect. I share the majority's hope that the Governor and Legislature will work cooperatively, and as a result, I would not deviate from our regular procedure to rush the enforcement of this order. I respectfully dissent.
Cavanagh, J., joins the statement of McCormack, C.J.
Bernstein, J. (dissenting).
For the reasons stated in my dissenting statement in In re Certified Questions from the United States Dist. Court , ––– Mich. ––––, ––– N.W.2d ––––, 2020 WL 6038886 (Docket No. 161492, October 12, 2020), I would decline to give the Court's order in this case immediate effect. Instead, consistently with my response to the motion to delay filed by defendants in In re Certified Questions , I would exercise our discretion to stay the precedential effect of our decision until October 30.