article: COVID-19 Summary: Three residents of Michigan sued Governor Whitmer, challenging that an Executive Order issued to combat the spread of COVID-19, which required residents to stay home and suspend non-essential activity and business, violated their Equal Protection, Due Process, and First and Second Amendment constitutional rights. On April 24, the defendant issued an executive order permitting the activities that the plaintiffs alleged were unconstitutionally prohibited. The motion for preliminary injunction was dismissed as moot, however, the plaintiffs filed an amended motion on April 28. <hr> On April 15, 2020, three Michigan residents, two owning cottages in the state and one owning a landscaping business, filed this complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The plaintiffs sued the Governor of the State of Michigan and three county prosecuting attorneys, in their official capacities, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Michigan state law. The plaintiffs, represented by the American Freedom Law Center, challenged Michigan's Executive Order 2020-42, which ordered all people in Michigan to stay home and suspended activities deemed unnecessary to sustain or protect life. The plaintiffs sought relief declaring that the enactment and enforcement of Executive Order 2020-42 violated "their fundamental liberties and rights secured by the United States and Michigan Constitutions and an order enjoining the same." The plaintiffs also sought attorneys' fees and costs. The case was assigned to Judge Paul L. Maloney. On April 9, 2020, Executive Order 2020-42 was enacted in response to the outbreak of COVID-19 in Michigan; as of April 8, Michigan reported 20,346 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 959 deaths from it. The order directed all Michigan residents to stay home, subject to exceptions for exercise and obtaining services or supplies, prohibited "all public and private gatherings of any number of people occurring among persons not part of a single household," and required that "no person or entity shall operate a business or conduct operations that require workers to leave their homes or places of residence except to the extent that those workers are necessary to sustain or protect life or to conduct minimum basic operations." The order was put in place with the goal of suppressing the spread of COVID-19, preventing the state's health care system from being overwhelmed, and allowing time for the production of test kits, ventilators, and personal protective equipment. It was set to stay in effect until April 30, 2020. The plaintiffs claimed that the Executive Order violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, arguing it lacked any rational basis and deprived plaintiffs of their "fundamental rights and freedom," such as the right to travel to their cottages, conduct landscaping business, and travel to purchase ammunition, "yet the order provides exceptions for other activity and conduct that is similar in its impact and effects." Moreover, the plaintiffs asserted that the Executive Order violated their right to Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment, as it deprived plaintiffs of "the use and enjoyment of their property without due process" and because "it broadly prohibits Plaintiffs . . . from traveling through public spaces and roadways to their cottages, and yet the executive order permits other travel with the same impact and effect of Plaintiffs’ forbidden travel." Furthermore, the plaintiffs asserted that the Executive Order violated their "right to contract without government interference," their right to keep and bear arms, and their right to "associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends." On April 20, the plaintiffs sought a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, and asked for an order temporarily enjoining enforcement of Executive Order 2020-42 pending a hearing on whether a preliminary injunction should issue. On April 24, 2020, the defendant issued Executive Order 2020-59, which permits: individuals to travel between their own residences and cottages within the State of Michigan, the operation of landscaping businesses within the State of Michigan, outdoor activities that include using boats with motors for recreational purposes, the sale of guns from any store via remote order and curbside pick-up, and the sale of guns in-store from stores that sell necessary supplies as well as guns in their normal course of business, and exempts from penalty religious gatherings at private residences. On April 26, the plaintiffs stated that the requested relief is no longer necessary because the stipulation rendered the TRO and PI motion is moot. The next day, the court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. On April 28, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, claiming that while stipulation remedied the immediate harm, it did not resolve the constitutional issues presented. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 20, arguing that the plaintiffs' claims had become moot due to the series of executive orders that permitted the activities that the amended complaint alleged were prohibited. They further argued that the State had the broad authority to implement emergency measures during an emergency. The case is ongoing but with little activity since the summer.
summary: In April 2020, three residents of Michigan sued the Governor of Michigan and three county prosecuting attorneys in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The plaintiffs challenged Executive Order 2020-42, which was enacted to combat the spread of COVID-19 in Michigan and required residents to stay at home and suspend all non-essential activities. The plaintiffs claimed that the challenged measures of the Executive Order violated their constitutional rights, lacked a rational basis, and had no real or substantial relation to the objectives of the order. On April 24, the defendant issued an executive order permitting the activities that the plaintiffs alleged were unconstitutionally prohibited. The motion for preliminary injunction was dismissed as moot, however, the plaintiffs filed an amended motion on April 28. The case is ongoing.