The Michigan Supreme Court ruled against businesses seeking payments after they were hurt by the COVID-19 pandemic.
On Friday, the Michigan Supreme Court issued two separate 5-2 orders which allowed appeals court’s opinions to stand that were in favor of Governor Gretchen Whitmer‘s COVID-19 restrictions in the state.
During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, widespread closures were ordered in Michigan, impacting businesses like gyms, restaurants, bowling alleys and movie theaters. The closures came in an effort to curb the spread of the virus.
In a series of lawsuits, businesses recognized the state’s responsibility in managing public health threats but argued that they were entitled to compensation for the government’s taking of private property. However, a court of appeals in the state ruled that the state government was not taking property in 2022.
A sign explains the closure of a Detroit, Michigan, restaurant due to COVID-19 on March 24, 2020. On Friday, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled against paying businesses impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Photo by SETH HERALD/AFP via Getty Images
“The property clearly still had value, even if no revenue or profit was generated during the closure,” the appeals court said in a ruling in 2022. “And any lost value relative to the real and personal property was likely recovered as soon as the temporary prohibition was lifted.”
On Friday, the Michigan Supreme Court did not issue an official ruling on the cases, but instead shared a two-sentence order agreeing with the appeals court. However, Justices David Viviano and Richard Bernstein argued that the state’s highest court should have heard full appeals arguments.
The court said that they were “not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this court” in response to the arguments.
Viviano said that the decision to pass on hearing the argument hurts the “credibility of the judiciary to serve as a bulwark of our liberty and ensure that the government does not take private property without just compensation—even in times of crisis.”
Viviano also said that the court left “unresolved novel and important questions regarding federal and state takings jurisprudence.”
“Plaintiff … has raised plausible claims that the government took its property without just compensation, and genuine issues of material fact exist regarding its claims,” Viviano wrote.
The Michigan Supreme Court also ruled against a lawsuit brought by college students who sought financial reimbursements after schools transitioned from in-person learning to virtual classes during the COVID-19 pandemic. The state’s Supreme Court allowed a court of appeals ruling to stand, which ruled against providing the students with reimbursements.
The court of appeals previously said that the students who brought the suit failed to adequately show that their schools promised in-person teaching in their contracts, The Detroit News reported.
This article includes reporting from The Associated Press.
