The ongoing validity of these executive orders has been the subject of much public debate as well as litigation in both state and federal courts. In response to a global, national, and state outbreak of the severe acute respiratory disease named COVID-19, Michigan’s Governor has issued a succession of executive orders over the past six months limiting public and private gatherings, closing and imposing restrictions upon certain businesses, and regulating a broad variety of other aspects of the day-to-day lives of our state’s citizens in an effort to contain the spread of this contagious and sometimes deadly disease.
The Michigan Supreme Court observed and ruled: This case concerns the nature and scope of our state’s public response to one of the most threatening public-health crises of modern times. The decision provided background information that is helpful in understanding and giving context to the instant litigation. RULING BY THE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT – COVID-19 LITIGATION The Gym filed suit about three months before our Supreme Court issued its opinion in In re Certified Questions from the United States Dist Court, Western Dist of Mich, Southern Div, 506 Mich 332 958 NW2d 1 (2020). We reverse and remand for entry of judgment in favor of the State. 1- property for public use and the principles applicable to the state’s authority to exercise its police powers to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. 2 We note that a cross-appeal is unnecessary when simply urging an alternative basis for affirmance. Therefore, for purposes of this opinion, we shall simply refer to the Gym as the party pursuing the litigation. At this stage of the proceedings, the class had not been certified by the Court of Claims. The Gym cross appeals, arguing that the Court of Claims properly denied the State’s motion for summary disposition but applied the wrong analytical framework.2 This appeal concerns the interplay between the constitutional principles applicable to the taking of private 1 The Gym filed suit in an individual capacity and as a representative of a putative class of plaintiffs comprised of gyms, fitness centers, recreation centers, sports facilities, exercise facilities, exercise studios, and other similarly-situated businesses in Oscoda, Alcona, Ogemaw, Iosco, Gladwin, Arenac, Midland, Bay, Saginaw, Tuscola, Sanilac, Huron, Gratiot, Clinton, Shiawassee, Eaton, and Ingham Counties. The Gym demanded “just compensation” for the taking of its private property that resulted from the closure. Defendant, the State of Michigan (the State), appeals by leave granted the opinion and order of the Court of Claims that denied the State’s motion for summary disposition with respect to an action brought by plaintiff, The Gym 24/7 Fitness, LLC (the Gym),1 alleging an unconstitutional taking of its business property by operation of Executive Orders issued by the Governor that temporarily shuttered the business in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Before: CAVANAGH, P.J., and MARKEY and SERVITTO, JJ.
20-000132-MM STATE OF MICHIGAN, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v No.
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS THE GYM 24/7 FITNESS, LLC, and All Others Similarly Situated, FOR PUBLICATION Ma9:05 a.m. If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.