Mich I that plaintiffs continue to make such an argument. 4 In their reply brief, plaintiffs state: In AFT Michigan [7] the Court of Appeals rightly found that 2010 PA 75 deprived members of the Public School Employees Retirement System of their right to substantive due process because the statute mandated the extraction of 3% of wages without assuring that anything would be provided in return.. . . ... 2012 PA 300 does not repair the defect found in 2010 PA 75. Section 43e, MCL 38.1343e, is still unconstitutional because it permits an extraction with no guarantee of benefit.... 5 Plaintiffs’ claim of contractual impairment that prevailed in AFT Mich I focused on the changes that 2010 PA 75 made to the retiree healthcare benefits program. AF 444; 110 S Ct 2481; 110 L Ed 2d 412 (1990) (<HOLDING>); and compare People v Bullock, 440 Mich 15,
holding such checkpoints permissible under us const ams iv and xiv holding that speculation while permissible must be rational recognizing the permissible use of hearsay without corroboration holding that per se statutory rule is not permissible under fourth amendment holding that no discovery is permissible in similar circumstances