Filed Date: April 28, 2020
Closed Date: Dec. 2, 2020
Clearinghouse coding complete
COVID-19 Summary: This is a suit brought by several Michigan businesses against the State of Michigan's executive orders requiring non-critical businesses to stop operating during the outbreak of COVID-19. The plaintiffs alleged that Michigan's orders arbitrarily discriminated against their businesses, in violation of several constitutional clauses and state law. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss after Governor Whitmer lifted the restrictions on businesses. The court dismissed the complaint on December 2, 2020.
The executive orders issued by Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer in response to the outbreak of COVID-19 prohibited activities and business "not necessary to sustain or protect life." Seven Michigan businesses that were required to stop operating alleged that the executive orders violated their constitutional rights and state law. Represented by private counsel, plaintiffs brought this Section 1983 suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan against Governor Whitmer and the Director of the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services on April 28, 2020. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that the executive orders were arbitrary and discriminated against their businesses by treating them differently than other similarly situated businesses. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees. The case was assigned to Judge Paul L. Maloney.
Plaintiffs asserted that the executive orders forced them to "close or significantly restrict their businesses, depriving them of their liberty and property interests without due process," while allowing other businesses deemed 'critical' to stay open, even though: 'critical' businesses must adhere to guidance from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on 'social distancing'; and Plaintiffs are fully capable of adhering to those same guide-lines if allowed to reopen." Moreover, plaintiffs argued that the measures taken by defendants to "flatten the curve" and stop the spread of COVID-19 in Michigan were unnecessary and excessive. Plaintiffs claimed that the executive orders requiring them to close their businesses violated the Dormant Commerce Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, their Procedural and Substantive Due Process rights, the Equal Protection Clause, and that the orders were unconstitutionally vague. Plaintiffs also contended that executive orders violated the state's separation of powers clause and the Emergency Powers Act. 2020 WL 2079549.
On May 11, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and removed their claims that the executive orders violated state law.
On May 29, the United States Department of Justice filed a statement of interest explaining that the alleged facts suggest that the executive orders violated the Equal Protection Clause and the Commerce Clause. The DOJ stated that "Plaintiffs have made an initial showing that the Orders arbitrarily and oppressively limit their business operations by prohibiting and restricting Plaintiffs’ business operations while permitting similarly situated businesses to continue to operate, or to operate with lesser restrictions, and permitting social gatherings of as many as ten people." The DOJ also concluded that plaintiffs were likely to establish that the executive orders unduly burdened interstate commerce, in violation of the Commerce Clause.
On June 8, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs' claims were moot, that plaintiffs lacked standing, and that plaintiffs failed to adequately state a claim concerning their federal constitutional challenges. Defendants asserted that the restrictions challenged by plaintiffs had been lifted as the "curve of the virus's spread . . . flatten[ed]," rendering the plaintiffs' claims moot. Furthermore, defendants argued that plaintiffs' claims lacked merit because the executive orders were "a proper exercise of the authority given to the States to combat a public health crisis" and "necessary to meet the demands of these extraordinary times."
On June 12, the Michigan Epidemiologists sought to file an amicus brief in support of the defendants' motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs opposed the motion for amicus brief on June 30 and they opposed the motion to dismiss itself on July 8, 2020.
On December 2, 2020, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice and without costs or attorneys' fees to any party. The case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Aaron Gurley (6/9/2020)
Averyn Lee (7/12/2020)
For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17222701/parties/signature-sothbeys-international-realty-inc-v-whitmer/
Green, Phillip J. (Michigan)
Maloney, Paul Lewis (Michigan)
McCarthy, Daniel J (Michigan)
Richotte, Joseph E. (Michigan)
Allen, Christopher M. (Michigan)
Booth, Joshua O. (Michigan)
Fedynsky, John G. (Michigan)
Fowler, Darrin F. (Michigan)
Froehlich, Joseph T. (Michigan)
Nessel, Dana M. (Michigan)
Green, Phillip J. (Michigan)
Maloney, Paul Lewis (Michigan)
McCarthy, Daniel J (Michigan)
Richotte, Joseph E. (Michigan)
Allen, Christopher M. (Michigan)
Booth, Joshua O. (Michigan)
Fedynsky, John G. (Michigan)
Fowler, Darrin F. (Michigan)
Froehlich, Joseph T. (Michigan)
Nessel, Dana M. (Michigan)
Birge, Andrew Byerly (Michigan)
Dreiband, Eric S. (District of Columbia)
Kay, Jonathan R (New York)
Matz, Joshua Adam (New York)
Maugeri, Alexander Virgil (District of Columbia)
McManus, Jennifer L (Michigan)
Pinion, Hilary (Virginia)
Schneider, Matthew (New York)
Taufique, Mahrah M (New York)
Tolentino, Raymond Patrick (New York)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17222701/signature-sothbeys-international-realty-inc-v-whitmer/
Last updated July 23, 2022, 3:21 a.m.
State / Territory: Michigan
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: April 28, 2020
Closing Date: Dec. 2, 2020
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Seven Michigan businesses
Plaintiff Type(s):
Closely-held (for profit) corporation
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Governor of the State of Michigan, State
Director of the State of Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, State
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Availably Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief: