Whitmer's Actions: Lawful Or Criminal?

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer has been accused of breaking the law on several occasions. In 2020, Whitmer's executive orders in response to the COVID-19 pandemic were ruled unconstitutional by the Michigan Supreme Court, with the court stating that Whitmer had no authority to declare a state of emergency without the consent of the State Legislature. Whitmer was also accused of breaking the law in relation to campaign finance and the use of a chartered flight, but state campaign finance officials ruled that she did not violate state laws. Additionally, Michigan's Republican-led Legislature sued Whitmer in 2020, arguing that she was overstepping her authority by restricting businesses and other activities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Michigan Supreme Court ruled Whitmer's executive orders were illegal and unconstitutional

On October 2, 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that Governor Gretchen Whitmer's executive orders were illegal and unconstitutional. The ruling stated that Whitmer had no authority to declare a state of emergency without the consent of the State Legislature after the initial 28 days. The Court found that the 1945 Emergency Powers of the Governor Act violated the Michigan Constitution by granting the governor's office too much power.

Justices Stephen Markman, Brian Zahra, Beth Clement, and David Viviano ruled against Whitmer's illegal use of power. Chief Justice Bridget M. McCormack, Richard Bernstein, and Megan Cavanagh voted in favour of Whitmer, arguing that the 1945 law was constitutional and provided standards for the governor's orders to be "reasonable and necessary".

The Supreme Court's ruling invalidated dozens of Whitmer's executive orders, including business restrictions and mask mandates. The decision meant that Whitmer would have to compromise with Republicans on any health emergency orders extending beyond 28 days. Whitmer argued that her powers would remain in place for at least 21 days, but Patrick Wright, vice president for legal affairs at the Mackinac Center, believed the Supreme Court decision ended her executive orders immediately.

The ruling caused confusion among local governments and businesses, who were unsure whether to continue following Whitmer's orders. The immediate effect of the ruling was the cancellation of virtual city council meetings in Flint and Lansing, as Whitmer's orders allowing online government meetings were now deemed unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's decision also impacted unemployment benefits, as Whitmer's order had allowed for extended jobless aid during the pandemic.

The Michigan Legislature was expected to adopt legislation to continue jobless aid and pass bills to reinstate unemployment extensions and electronic public meeting allowances. The ruling highlighted the importance of all three branches of Michigan's government working together with proper checks and balances in place.

Whitmer's use of 1945 Emergency Powers of the Governor Act was deemed unlawful

On October 2, 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that Governor Gretchen Whitmer's use of the 1945 Emergency Powers of the Governor Act was unlawful. The court's 4-3 decision stated that the governor's actions over the preceding five months were illegal and unconstitutional, as she did not have the authority to declare a state of emergency without the consent of the State Legislature after the initial 28 days.

Justices Stephen Markman, Brian Zahra, Beth Clement, and David Viviano ruled against Whitmer's illegal use of power. In his opinion, Justice Markman wrote, "(We) do not believe that the Legislature intended to allow the governor to redeclare ... the identical state of emergency and state of disaster under these circumstances." He also expressed hope that the ruling would encourage the governor and Legislature to collaborate to address the challenge.

Chief Justice Bridget McCormack, joined by Justices Richard Bernstein and Megan Cavanagh, dissented, arguing that the court could not strike down a law as unconstitutional if there were standards in the law to guide the decisions. She cited the 1945 law's requirement that the governor's orders must be "reasonable and necessary" and issued to protect life, property, and control emergencies.

The Supreme Court's ruling also unanimously deemed that any orders issued by Whitmer after April 30 without legislative approval were invalid. This decision marked a significant development in the ongoing conflict between Whitmer and Republicans, who had criticised her handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting restrictions on businesses and residents.

In response to the ruling, Whitmer asserted that her emergency declaration and related orders would remain in place for 21 days, with many of them continuing "under alternative sources" of law, likely referring to public health statutes. She emphasised the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak in Michigan and the importance of maintaining emergency measures to protect public health.

Whitmer's 1976 Emergency Management Act orders were also deemed invalid

In 2020, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer issued a series of executive orders to combat the spread of COVID-19. On March 10, 2020, Whitmer declared a state of emergency and issued COVID-19-related executive orders under the Emergency Management Act of 1976. The 1976 Act has a 28-day time limit. To extend the state of emergency beyond the 28-day time limit, the governor must request an extension from the Michigan House and Senate. On April 1, 2020, Whitmer requested a 70-day extension. On April 7, the House and Senate approved an extension but only for 23 days.

On April 1, 2020, Whitmer re-declared the state of emergency under the Emergency Management Act of 1976. She also declared a new state of emergency under the Emergency Powers of the Governor Act of 1945. The 1945 Act has no time limit.

On May 21, 2020, the Michigan legislature sued Whitmer in the Michigan Court of Claims, arguing that the governor's second proclamation of a state of emergency under the 1976 Act was invalid. The Court of Claims held that the governor's redeclaration violated the Emergency Management Act of 1976; however, the court held that the declaration under the 1945 Act was valid. The court's findings were upheld by the Michigan Court of Appeals.

Whitmer's campaign contributions and chartered flight did not break the law

Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan has faced scrutiny for her campaign contributions and use of chartered flights. In one instance, Whitmer appointed a lawyer, Reid Felsing, to a district court judge position. Felsing had headed multiple liberal dark money groups, and his appointment was criticised as hypocritical given Whitmer's previous stance on limiting the influence of such groups in elections.

Whitmer's office defended the appointment, citing Felsing's experience as a magistrate, professor, and legal practitioner. While some have questioned whether Whitmer's actions broke the law, it's important to note that campaign contributions and the use of chartered flights are common practices in political campaigns and are not inherently illegal.

In the case of campaign contributions, candidates often rely on donations from individuals, organisations, and political action committees (PACs) to fund their campaigns. These contributions are typically regulated by laws that set limits on the amount that can be donated and require disclosure of the sources. As long as Whitmer's campaign adhered to these regulations, the contributions themselves would not be illegal.

Similarly, the use of chartered flights by political candidates is not uncommon, especially when travelling to multiple locations during a campaign. While the cost of such flights can be significant, they are typically paid for by the campaign or a related organisation and are considered a necessary expense to efficiently reach voters and attend campaign events.

In summary, while Whitmer's campaign contributions and use of chartered flights may have raised ethical concerns for some, they do not inherently break the law. It's important to distinguish between legal and ethical considerations in political campaigns, as long as the relevant regulations and disclosure requirements are met.

However, it is worth noting that Whitmer's executive orders during the COVID-19 pandemic were ruled unconstitutional by the Michigan Supreme Court in 2020. This ruling pertained to her use of emergency powers without legislative approval, and it highlighted the importance of checks and balances in government.

Michigan Legislature sued Whitmer over COVID-19 restrictions

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer faced legal action from the Republican-controlled Michigan Legislature over her COVID-19 restrictions. The dispute focused on two policy bills connected to a portion of the Legislature's $4 billion COVID-19 relief plan. The bills would limit the state Department of Health and Human Services' epidemic orders to 28 days and shift decisions on school closures from the state department to local health agencies.

Whitmer opposed the bills, arguing that she wouldn't give up the powers of the governor's office. She claimed that Republican state lawmakers were withholding a portion of federal funding to pressure her into relinquishing her administration's authority. The Legislature argued that if Whitmer's administration spent the money tied to the bills but blocked the limits on her power, it "would be contrary to both law and Michigan’s constitutional system."

The Michigan Senate authorized a lawsuit against Whitmer, setting up a potential legal battle over the COVID-19 relief funds tied to limits on the administration's power. The resolution, introduced by Sen. Jim Stamas, allowed Majority Leader Mike Shirkey to commence legal action defending the constitutionality of the two bills.

This was not the first lawsuit filed against Whitmer by GOP lawmakers. On October 2, 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court decided that Whitmer had violated her constitutional authority by issuing executive orders to combat COVID-19 without the approval of state lawmakers. The court ruled that a state law allowing the governor to declare emergencies without legislative input was unconstitutional.

Separately, five businesses filed a lawsuit against Whitmer and the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services Director Robert Gordon, accusing them of violating constitutional rights by imposing a stay-at-home order. The lawsuit claimed that Whitmer's order was based on unproven assumptions about the CCP virus's deadliness and that she had not disclosed the data or methodology used to create the modelling that justified her actions.

Frequently asked questions