(WXYZ/AP) — Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and MDHHS Director Robert Gordon are hoping the Michigan Supreme Court can clarify when the ruling against the emergency orders goes into effect.
According to the governor's office, Whitmer wants the court to let people know the ruling doesn't go into effect until Friday, Oct. 30.
It comes days after the ruling came down, and after both the Michigan Attorney General's Office and police agencies would no longer enforce the orders.
Nessel's office added that going forward, other law enforcement agencies or state departments have independent enforcement authority regarding COVID-19 safety measures.
“We need this transition period to protect the 830,000 Michigan workers and families who are depending on unemployment benefits to pay their bills and put food on the table, and to protect Michiganders everywhere who are counting on their leaders to protect them,” Whitmer said in a release. “The Supreme Court has spoken, and while I vehemently disagree with their ruling, I’m ready to work across the aisle with Republicans in the legislature where we can find common ground to slow the spread of the virus and rebuild our economy. It’s time for Republicans in the Legislature to get to work and start showing that they are taking this crisis seriously. They can start by canceling their October recess and getting back to work. Let’s work together and get this done.”
On Friday, Justices Stephen Markman, Brian Zahra, Elizabeth Clement ruled, with David Viviano concurring in part, that the governor didn't have the authority to issue a state of emergency after April 30, 2020 under the Emergency Management Act (EMA).
The justices also ruled that the Emergency Powers of the Governors Act, the 1945 law, is unconstitutional "because purports to delegate the executive branch the legislative power of state government – including its plenary police powers.
Chief Justice Bridget McCormack, Justice Richard Bernstein and Justice Megan Cavanagh agreed with the majority saying the governor didn't have the power to issue executive orders after April 30 under the EMA, but disagreed that the EPGA violated the state's constitution.
"I would uphold the EPGA as a valid delegation of legislative authority under our settled jurisprudence," the three justices wrote.