On October 2, the Court
ruled that the 1945 law Whitmer has been using to justify a “state of emergency” and her lockdown orders was unconstitutional, effectively negating any executive orders related to it.
Whitmer attacked the Court and claimed that her orders remained in effect until October 30.
“(The) Supreme Court ruling, handed down by a narrow majority of Republican justices, is deeply disappointing, and I vehemently disagree with the court’s interpretation of the Michigan Constitution,” she said.
“Right now, every state and the federal government have some form of declared emergency. With this decision, Michigan will become the sole outlier at a time when the Upper Peninsula is experiencing rates of Covid infection not seen in our state since April.”
In a motion filed last Monday, Whitmer argued she created that date to “allow for an orderly transition during which some responsive measures can be placed under alternative executive authority and the Governor and Legislature can work to address many other pandemic-related matters that currently fall under executive orders,” CNN
On Monday, the Court responded: No.
“Justices ruled 4-3 that the orders issued under the 1945 Emergency Powers of the Governor Act ‘are of no continuing legal effect,'” according to
The majority said the decision “leaves open many avenues for our Governor and Legislature to work together in a cooperative spirit and constitutional manner to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Instead, after the initial ruling, Whitmer’s administration issued new guidelines through the Department of Health and Human Services, under the Public Health Code of 1978, which require “face coverings, gathering limits, nursing home safety measures and more.”
Those new regulations are not affected by the Court’s ruling.