article: COVID-19 Summary: This lawsuit was filed against the state of Michigan by 22 individual companies operating fitness businesses in Michigan and an organization representing over 150 fitness facilities in the state to enjoin executive orders that caused their facilities to remain closed. The court granted a preliminary injunction on June 19. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit stayed the lower court's injunction on June 24. <hr> On May 22, 2020, owners and operators of Michigan’s indoor fitness facilities filed a suit against the Governor of the State of Michigan and the Director of the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services to enjoin orders that required the plaintiffs to keep their facilities closed. The plaintiffs brought this lawsuit as a declaratory and injunctive action under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202, and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Lockdown Orders violated the Constitution, an order enjoining the state from enforcing the lockdown orders, and a prohibition form issuing further orders that would require the plaintiffs to keep their businesses closed. The case filed in the U.S District Court for the Western District of Michigan and assigned to District Judge Paul L Maloney. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, were comprised of 22 individual companies operating fitness businesses in Michigan, as well as the League of Independent Fitness Facilities and Trainers (LIFFT), an organization representing over 150 fitness facilities in the state. On March 16, Governor Whitmer issued temporary restrictions on the uses of public facilities, which included gymnasiums, fitness centers, recreation centers, and indoor sports facilities. Throughout June, the defendant incrementally re-opened sectors of the economy with Michigan Executive order 2020-110 and 2020-115. The orders lifted certain restrictions on facilities such as restaurants, bowling, and climbing facilities subject to capacity restrictions, but left indoor fitness facilities remained completely closed. The plaintiffs alleged that the differential treatment of indoor fitness facilities violated substantive and procedural due process and equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the Dormant Commerce Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the Emergency Management Act. Further, the plaintiffs alleged that the order was void for vagueness as the defendant did not identify the criteria for which businesses were allowed to operate during the pandemic. They also alleged that the defendant exceeded the Governor’s authority in violation of the separation of powers doctrine in the Michigan constitution. The complaint was amended on June 1 to add 15 additional plaintiffs. On June 8, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendants from enforcing the orders. On June 12, the defendants filed a response to the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The defendants contended that the plaintiff LIFFT lacked organizational standing as it failed to establish injury-in-fact for the pre-enforcement claim, and therefore, should be dismissed. Oral argument was held on June 17. On the same day, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of standing. On June 19, the preliminary injunction was granted. 2020 WL 3421229. The court found that while the state was empowered to address emergencies like pandemics largely without interference from the courts, it was subject to constitutional limitations. Because the court found that the defendant was unable to state a rational basis to support the continued closure of indoor gyms, it did not survive deferential review. On the same day, the defendant filed an appeal to the Sixth Circuit, and also an emergency motion for a stay pending appeal filed at the district court. On June 22, the plaintiffs filed a motion in opposition to the stay pending appeal. The same day, the district court denied the defendants’ emergency motion to stay. 2020 WL 3422586. On June 24, the Sixth Circuit granted the defendant’s motion for an emergency stay, contending that the public interest of combatting COVID-19 outweighed the plaintiffs’ in favor of the stay. 2020 WL 3468281. The Sixth Circuit disagreed with the district court on whether the State demonstrated a rational basis to justify the plaintiffs’ continued closure, therefore surviving deferential review. The plaintiffs filed a motion asking the Sixth Circuit to reconsider the order, but the Sixth Circuit denied the motion on July 7. Back in the district court, the plaintiffs responded to the defendants motion to dismiss on July 16, 2020. As of October 17, the case is still ongoing.
summary: This lawsuit was filed against the state of Michigan by 22 individual companies operating fitness businesses in Michigan and an organization representing over 150 fitness facilities in the state. The suit was filed to enjoin orders that required the plaintiffs to keep their facilities closed. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction which was granted on June 19. The defendants filed an appeal to the Sixth Circuit, with a motion for a stay pending appeal. The district court denied the stay on June 22 but the Sixth CIrcuit granted the stay pending appeal on June 24. The case is ongoing.