By Ed White
Associated Press
DETROIT (AP) — The Michigan Supreme Court last Friday shut the door on businesses seeking to be paid by the state for restrictions that harmed sales during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The court, in a pair of 5-2 orders, let stand appeals court opinions in favor of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's administration.
Gyms, fitness centers, bowling alleys, restaurants and similar businesses were closed for months in 2020, or forced to limit public access, as the state tried to reduce the spread of COVID-19.
The businesses acknowledged the state's role in managing public health threats. But they argued that they deserved compensation for the government's taking of private property.
The state appeals court in 2022 said there was no taking.
"The property clearly still had value, even if no revenue or profit was generated during the closure," the court said at the time. "And any lost value relative to the real and personal property was likely recovered as soon as the temporary prohibition was lifted."
The Supreme Court did not issue formal opinions, instead releasing two-sentence orders.
Justice David Viviano, joined by Justice Richard Bernstein, said the court should have agreed to hear full appeals.
By passing, the court damages 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 said.
Associated Press
DETROIT (AP) — The Michigan Supreme Court last Friday shut the door on businesses seeking to be paid by the state for restrictions that harmed sales during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The court, in a pair of 5-2 orders, let stand appeals court opinions in favor of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's administration.
Gyms, fitness centers, bowling alleys, restaurants and similar businesses were closed for months in 2020, or forced to limit public access, as the state tried to reduce the spread of COVID-19.
The businesses acknowledged the state's role in managing public health threats. But they argued that they deserved compensation for the government's taking of private property.
The state appeals court in 2022 said there was no taking.
"The property clearly still had value, even if no revenue or profit was generated during the closure," the court said at the time. "And any lost value relative to the real and personal property was likely recovered as soon as the temporary prohibition was lifted."
The Supreme Court did not issue formal opinions, instead releasing two-sentence orders.
Justice David Viviano, joined by Justice Richard Bernstein, said the court should have agreed to hear full appeals.
By passing, the court damages 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 said.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
