Michigan Supreme Court Dismisses COVID-19 Mandate Challenge

A State of Michigan Department of Health and Human Services office in Detroit, Mich., on March 26, 2020. Jeff Kowalsky/AFP via Getty Images

The Michigan Supreme Court has dismissed a case challenging the pandemic powers of the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), overturning a lower court’s finding the agency overstepped its authority with sweeping COVID-19 mandates.

By dismissing the case, the high court did not have to rule on the constitutionality of DHHS’s executive powers. It remains a question whether the department can impose similar restrictions on Michigan businesses and individuals in the future without legislative approval.

In a Nov. 1 order, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed part of a June 29, 2023 judgment of the Court of Appeals, ruling that the case is moot and vacating the remainder of the lower court’s opinion, which had determined that DHHS exceeded its authority with COVID-19 mandates like limiting public gatherings and mandating protective masks. In a 5–2 split decision, the high court ruled that the case should be declared moot because the mandates expired years ago and the plaintiff, River Crest Catering, has since closed its business.

Two dissenting justices, Richard H. Bernstein and David F. Viviano, argued that the appeals court’s finding—that DHHS overstepped its bound—was a “momentous ruling affecting the rights of all Michiganders” and should not be dismissed “so lightly.”

“While plaintiff has closed the doors to its physical catering business, the likelihood would appear to be significantly greater that other similar businesses might again be subject to restrictions similar to those issued during the COVID-19 pandemic,” wrote Viviano in dissent, joined by Bernstein.

The case, known as T & V Associates, Inc. v. Director of Health and Human Services, was brought by River Crest Catering, a Michigan business that argued COVID-19 restrictions imposed by DHHS in 2021 violated its rights. Specifically, River Crest contested a DHHS emergency order limiting gatherings at food service establishments, including outdoor ones, and requiring masks, claiming the agency’s mandate under a portion of Michigan’s Public Health Code (MCL 333.2253) infringed on its due process rights. The company sought a ruling to declare the order void and to challenge DHHS’s authority to impose such restrictions without legislative approval.

In April 2021, River Crest filed a complaint in the Court of Claims seeking a declaratory judgment, arguing that the section in the state’s public health code represented an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority and that DHHS exceeded its authority under this statute. The plaintiff also claimed violations of its procedural and substantive due process rights.

In response, DHHS requested dismissal, asserting mootness, lack of standing, and failure to state a valid claim. The Court of Claims granted DHHS’s motion, concluding that while the case was not moot and River Crest had standing, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate an unconstitutional delegation of power and due process violations.

River Crest appealed the Court of Claims decision, and the Michigan Court of Appeals sided with the catering company in a split decision on June 29, 2023. The appellate court also found that the case was not moot, as the underlying legal issues—DHHS’s authority and the constitutionality of MCL 333.2253—remained relevant to businesses potentially facing similar mandates in future public health emergencies. Additionally, the Court of Appeals found that DHHS had overstepped its authority under the statute, marking a significant limitation on the agency’s ability to impose sweeping mandates without further legislative backing.

The Michigan Supreme Court’s Nov. 1 decision to overturn the appellate ruling and declare the case moot effectively removes the precedent set by the appellate court, meaning that DHHS’s authority under MCL 333.2253 remains largely undefined in terms of constitutional limits. This leaves Michigan state agencies with considerable discretion to interpret their emergency powers under the existing statute in the event of future health crises.

A request for comment on the implications of the ruling, sent to counsel representing River Crest in the case, was not immediately returned.