The Michigan Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments Wednesday on two pivotal cases questioning Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's powers to continue an emergency declaration and dozens of executive orders without the cooperation of the Legislature.
The hearing is featuring arguments from the GOP-led Legislature, medical facilities as well as the assistant attorneys general and Deputy Solicitor General Eric Restuccia representing the governor.
At issue is whether the Democratic governor can extend her emergency authority indefinitely without the approval of the Republican-controlled Legislature.
Whitmer has issued more than 170 executive orders since the start of the pandemic under the 1945 Emergency Powers of the Governor Act and the 1976 Emergency Management Act, the latter of which has a 28-day time limit unless extended by the Legislature.
Lower courts have ruled the governor's authority remains intact without the approval of the Legislature — which refused to extend her authority past April 30 — under the 1945 act because there is no time limit under that law.
The Legislature has argued that Whitmer effectively "seized" power to make laws and the months-long emergency declaration could set a precedent that allows the governor to operate without elected lawmakers.
Grand Rapids Federal District Judge Paul Maloney requested the Michigan Supreme Court rule on the question of Whitmer's emergency powers before he decided on the merits of a case brought by three medical centers challenging the governor's order that barred them from providing services deemed non-essential.
Doctors at those facilities have maintained the order was overly broad and vague, causing them to question which services were essential and delay operations that caused serious complications for some patients.
Some restrictions remain in place for the medical facilities and the prospect that the stricter controls could be restored if there's a spike caused the medical facilities to continue their lawsuit against the governor.
The medical centers have argued that the 1945 law should be construed in conjunction with the 1976 law's time limit or the state risks "a giant separation of powers problem" that allows the governor to act unilaterally for as long as he or she desires.
In August, the Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in the Legislature's case that the 1945 law does not require lawmakers' approval and doesn't violate the separation of powers.
"We find it more than a bit disconcerting that the very governmental body that delegated authority to governors to confront public emergencies — and holds and has held the exclusive power to change it — steps forward 75 years later to now assert that it unconstitutionally delegated unconstrained authority," the majority opinion added.
eleblanc@detroitnews.com
"emergency" - Google News
September 09, 2020 at 08:35PM
https://ift.tt/3bH4yFR
High court hearing arguments challenging Whitmer's emergency powers - The Detroit News
"emergency" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2VVGGYQ
https://ift.tt/3d7MC6X
emergency
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "High court hearing arguments challenging Whitmer's emergency powers - The Detroit News"
Post a Comment