Skip Navigation

Michigan’s Lockdown Orders Are Unconstitutional (Guest: Michael Van Beek)

October 22, 2020

The Michigan Supreme Court ruled the lockdown orders are unconstitutional. What implications does this have on other states?

On October 2, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled Gov. Whitmer’s use of two statutes to lockdown the state in response to COVID-19 has been unconstitutional. The justices stated that Whitmer need the approval of the legislature to enact the statutes beyond April. But the orders are still in effect under the state’s public health code. Michael Van Beek, research director at The Mackinac Center for Public Policy, says this could raise a red flag in any state which may have hidden rules on the books that give one branch of the government unlimited powers.

The Mackinac Center in Michigan filed a pro-bono lawsuit on the matter in federal court. Before the district judge ruled, he sought a clarification on the laws from the state’s Supreme Court.

Van Beek discusses:

1. Whitmer’s media tour defending herself as a champion of rule of law

2. How MCPP got involved in a lockdown case

3. Was the legislature completely powerless to overrule the governor

4. After the court decision, how the governor was able to do a “workaround” and keep orders in place

5. What state’s should be doing to clean up their books….many states have laws that are unconstititional

MI Health Department’s Find Way Around Unconstitutional Executive Orders, Oct 6

Federal Judge Rebukes Michigan’s Governor for Keeping Gyms Closed, July 8

Article Tags
Health Care
Author
AnneMarie Schieber is a research fellow at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Health Care News, Heartland's monthly newspaper for health care reform.
amschieber@heartland.org @HCPolicy