Michigan Supreme Court Dismisses COVID-19 Mandate Challenge

The Michigan Supreme Court has dismissed a case challenging the pandemic powers of the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), overturning a lower court’s finding the agency overstepped its authority with sweeping COVID-19 mandates.
By dismissing the case, the high court did not have to rule on the constitutionality of DHHS’s executive powers. It remains a question whether the department can impose similar restrictions on Michigan businesses and individuals in the future without legislative approval.
Two dissenting justices, Richard H. Bernstein and David F. Viviano, argued that the appeals court’s finding—that DHHS overstepped its bound—was a “momentous ruling affecting the rights of all Michiganders” and should not be dismissed “so lightly.”
“While plaintiff has closed the doors to its physical catering business, the likelihood would appear to be significantly greater that other similar businesses might again be subject to restrictions similar to those issued during the COVID-19 pandemic,” wrote Viviano in dissent, joined by Bernstein.
In April 2021, River Crest filed a complaint in the Court of Claims seeking a declaratory judgment, arguing that the section in the state’s public health code represented an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority and that DHHS exceeded its authority under this statute. The plaintiff also claimed violations of its procedural and substantive due process rights.
In response, DHHS requested dismissal, asserting mootness, lack of standing, and failure to state a valid claim. The Court of Claims granted DHHS’s motion, concluding that while the case was not moot and River Crest had standing, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate an unconstitutional delegation of power and due process violations.
The Michigan Supreme Court’s Nov. 1 decision to overturn the appellate ruling and declare the case moot effectively removes the precedent set by the appellate court, meaning that DHHS’s authority under MCL 333.2253 remains largely undefined in terms of constitutional limits. This leaves Michigan state agencies with considerable discretion to interpret their emergency powers under the existing statute in the event of future health crises.
A request for comment on the implications of the ruling, sent to counsel representing River Crest in the case, was not immediately returned.