A Michigan court on Wednesday ruled that Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s (D) stringent stay-at-home order in response to the coronavirus outbreak does not violate residents’ constitutional rights, denying a motion for a preliminary injunction.
A group of five Michigan residents filed a lawsuit against the governor and other state officials claiming that the quarantine measures infringed on their constitutional rights to procedural and substantive due process. They also alleged that the state’s Emergency Management Act was unconstitutional.
The Michigan Court of Claims rejected both allegations, ruling that an injunction against Whitmer’s order would not serve the public interest, “despite the temporary harm to plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.”
“Although the Court is painfully aware of the difficulties of living under the restrictions of these executive orders, those difficulties are temporary, while to those who contract the virus and cannot recover (and to their family members and friends), it is all too permanent,” Court of Claims Judge Christopher M. Murray wrote.
The outbreak of the coronavirus has led to a number of stay-at-home orders throughout the nation, as governors work to implement measures to slow the spread of the disease.
Whitmer first issued social distancing restrictions on March 24, suspending all activities “not necessary to sustain or protect life.”
She has since extended the order through May 15, though the latest directive allows for some nonessential businesses to begin reopening.
The state’s restrictions have been met with outrage from some residents, and President Trump earlier this month voiced support for those protesting Whitmer’s order. Protesters descended on the governor’s home last week to voice opposition to the executive actions.
In his ruling, Murray noted that the interests of “liberty” that the plaintiffs spoke of are “and always have been, subject to society’s interests.”
“They — our fellow residents — have an interest to remain unharmed by a highly communicable and deadly virus, and since the state entered the Union in 1837, it has had the broad power to act for the public health of the entire state when faced with a public crisis,” he wrote.
Michigan’s health department has reported more than 40,300 confirmed cases of COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, and 3,670 deaths from the virus.
Attorney General Dana Nessel cited those statistics in a statement following the Michigan court’s decision.
“The primary goal of the Stay Home, Stay Safe order has always been to protect human life,” Nessel said.
Despite the protests and lawsuit, polling in the state shows a majority of the state’s residents support the governor’s handling of the outbreak.
Other polls have also shown a vast majority of Americans back stay-at-home orders like the one issued by Whitmer.
No mthrfkrs, our rights are worth every risk….. there is no greater good, we are not a commune….. Be warned criminal faux court, all of you will be on a future Common law docket.
Will be interesting to see how these scum respond when they are in shackles being charged with treason.
Seriously … since when was Liberty subject to society’s interests? Blatant obfuscation of constitution.
The CONSTITUTION is a corporate charter, never ratified by we the people. The BILL OF RIGHTS is SUPREME LAW on and in the land. This SEPARATE document containing the 10 ARTICLES is what they are attempting to obfuscate. They will succeed if and only if we the people do not utilize the enforcement mechanism that being the 2nd Article.
Definitely violates my Bill of Rights
Check back with me on that
Mmmkk?
Think about this, in 2018, the US population was somewhere around 327.17 million, so while 60,000 deaths sounds like a lot, it is only 0.0183390898%, but even if it were 10%, 20%, 100%, our Bill of Rights cannot be “suspended”, it is the Supreme Law of this land. It will be divine to watch these spineless politicians trying to defend themselves in Common Law courts when the Republic is restored.
Power is the great evil with which we are contending. We have divided power between three branches of government and erected checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. However, where is the check on the power of the judiciary? If we fail to check the power of the judiciary, I predict that we will eventually live under judicial tyranny.
Patrick Henry