Emergency Coronavirus Orders Upheld in Wisconsin, Rejected in Michigan
Plus: Pandemic brings rise in electronic ankle monitoring, a court rules on stimulus checks for incarcerated people, and more...
Courts in Michigan and Wisconsin rule on governors' emergency orders. In Wisconsin, a circuit court upheld a statewide face-mask mandate and other public health emergency orders from Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat. Meanwhile, the Michigan Supreme Court again ruled against Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's April 30 executive order instituting various coronavirus containment measures—but subsequent Whitmer orders to the same effect make the decision meaningless in practice.
Having already ruled on October 2 that Whitmer's orders were unconstitutional, the Michigan Supreme Court yesterday rejected her plea to let the orders play out a little longer anyway. Whitmer's office had asked last week for more time to ensure "an orderly transition during which some responsive measures can be placed under alternative executive authority and the Governor and Legislature can work to address many other pandemic-related matters."
The 4-3 decision to deny this request "added an exclamation mark" to the court's earlier ruling, says the Detroit Free Press.
Yet it means little in practical terms for Michigan residents, the paper points out, since "new emergency orders that the Whitmer administration has issued through the state health department director—which replicate mask requirements, restrictions on gathering sizes and restaurant capacity, among other features—are not affected by the court's ruling."
The same goes for another Monday ruling from Michigan's Supreme Court, which rejected a lower court's decision in support of the emergency orders. "The Emergency Powers of the Governor Act is incompatible with the Constitution of our state," the state Supreme Court wrote in its decision on this case.
In Wisconsin, where Evers' orders were challenged by three residents represented by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL), things went down differently.
The lawsuit argued that Evers "exceeded his statutory authority by declaring public health emergencies on three separate occasions, each related to the same health crisis—COVID-19," explained St. Croix County Circuit Court Judge Michael Waterman in his decision. Wisconsin law "allows the governor to declare a public health emergency for up to 60 days, unless extended by the legislature," he noted.
WILL argued that successive orders for the same public health emergency violated this limit.
The judge disagreed:
Nothing in the statute prohibits the governor from declaring successive states of emergency. Instead, the statute allows a declaration 'if the governor determines that a public health emergency exists.' That language gives the governor broad discretion to act whenever conditions in the state constitute a public health emergency. Although 'the governor cannot rely on emergency powers indefinitely,' … he can when a public health emergency exists and the legislature lets him do it.
"The legislature can end the state of emergency at anytime, but so far, it has declined to do so," he added. "As the statewide representative body of the citizens of Wisconsin, the legislature's inaction is relevant and it weighs against judicial intervention."
Evers called the ruling "a victory in our fight against COVID-19 and our efforts to keep the people of Wisconsin safe and healthy during this unprecedented crisis." WILL intends to appeal.
NEW: WILL pledges appeal in lawsuit challenging @GovEvers's emergency declarations
— WILL (@WILawLiberty) October 12, 2020
Covid-19 has led to a worrisome uptick in the use of electronic ankle monitors. If we're not careful, the negative effects of this surveillance creep could last long after the pandemic. https://t.co/RwyNzkoeOP
— Prison_Health (@Prison_Health) October 13, 2020
• A 25-year-old man in Nevada has contracted COVID-19 a second time.
• Germany's terrible internet censorship law is spreading.
• Reason staffers divulge how we plan to vote (or not) in the 2020 election.
• The EARN IT Act is "anti-evidence policy," writes Cathy Reisenwitz, in a detailed piece explaining why.
• The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has "ordered the Treasury Department and the IRS to reverse their decision to disallow stimulus funds to prisoners solely based on their incarcerated status," reports The Washington Post.
• Facebook is banning Holocaust denial content.
• Belarus has authorized its police to use lethal weapons against protesters.
• In North Carolina, another example of how city regulations make it harder to help people in need.