By Alethia Kasben
Gongwer News Service
A split Supreme Court on Friday declined to take up a case arguing against the state’s policy for denying worker’s compensation benefits for immigrants living in the country illegally.
In a dispositive order, the court said it was not persuaded it needed to take up the issue after hearing oral arguments in October on the case Michigan Immigrant Rights Center v. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (MSC Docket No. 167300-1).
Justice Elizabeth Welch and Justice Kimberly Thomas wrote dissents, with Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh signing onto Thomas’.
The MIRC sued the state over its worker’s compensation policy, winning in the Court of Claims. The Court of Appeals, however, said the lawsuit failed because the plaintiffs did not file within the one-year period required by the Court of Claims Act.
In separate written dissents, Welch and Thomas wrote they would have provided leave to appeal.
Welch said the Court of Appeals erred when it ruled a claim for declaratory relief based on prospective harm can accrue and be subject to the Court of Claims notice requirement.
“Declaratory relief must be based on a live controversy, but that live controversy can be based on either past or future harms,” she wrote. “Statutes of limitations and notice provisions apply to declaratory relief based on past harm, but they do not apply to declaratory actions based on future harm.”
Thomas, in her dissent signed onto by Cavanagh, also wrote the Court of Appeals was incorrect.
“This ruling ignores the language of the statute and more than 100 years of sovereign-immunity law,” she wrote. “It also risks placing formalism above the rights and freedoms enshrined in our federal and state Constitutions.”
MIRC, and its counsel organizations FarmSTAND and the Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice, in a joint statement said it’s a sad day for the law in Michigan.
“The Michigan Supreme Court’s 4-3 ruling today was not on the merits of whether the state is legally obligated to include all workers – regardless of immigration status – in workers’ compensation,” the statement said. “But the decision undermines all Michganders’ rights – letting stand a ruling that because the governor violated the Constitution in the past she can continue to do so in the future. It also leaves the state Legislature and governor with the obligation to determine whether they are going to comply with the law and provide all workers’ compensation for on-the-job injuries, or continue to allow undocumented workers serving Michigan businesses to be scapegoated. If the courts won’t compel what is right, MIRC, the communities it serves, and all residents are at the mercy of those in power.”
Gongwer News Service
A split Supreme Court on Friday declined to take up a case arguing against the state’s policy for denying worker’s compensation benefits for immigrants living in the country illegally.
In a dispositive order, the court said it was not persuaded it needed to take up the issue after hearing oral arguments in October on the case Michigan Immigrant Rights Center v. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (MSC Docket No. 167300-1).
Justice Elizabeth Welch and Justice Kimberly Thomas wrote dissents, with Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh signing onto Thomas’.
The MIRC sued the state over its worker’s compensation policy, winning in the Court of Claims. The Court of Appeals, however, said the lawsuit failed because the plaintiffs did not file within the one-year period required by the Court of Claims Act.
In separate written dissents, Welch and Thomas wrote they would have provided leave to appeal.
Welch said the Court of Appeals erred when it ruled a claim for declaratory relief based on prospective harm can accrue and be subject to the Court of Claims notice requirement.
“Declaratory relief must be based on a live controversy, but that live controversy can be based on either past or future harms,” she wrote. “Statutes of limitations and notice provisions apply to declaratory relief based on past harm, but they do not apply to declaratory actions based on future harm.”
Thomas, in her dissent signed onto by Cavanagh, also wrote the Court of Appeals was incorrect.
“This ruling ignores the language of the statute and more than 100 years of sovereign-immunity law,” she wrote. “It also risks placing formalism above the rights and freedoms enshrined in our federal and state Constitutions.”
MIRC, and its counsel organizations FarmSTAND and the Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice, in a joint statement said it’s a sad day for the law in Michigan.
“The Michigan Supreme Court’s 4-3 ruling today was not on the merits of whether the state is legally obligated to include all workers – regardless of immigration status – in workers’ compensation,” the statement said. “But the decision undermines all Michganders’ rights – letting stand a ruling that because the governor violated the Constitution in the past she can continue to do so in the future. It also leaves the state Legislature and governor with the obligation to determine whether they are going to comply with the law and provide all workers’ compensation for on-the-job injuries, or continue to allow undocumented workers serving Michigan businesses to be scapegoated. If the courts won’t compel what is right, MIRC, the communities it serves, and all residents are at the mercy of those in power.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://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
