Opinion ID: 4572792
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the epga

Text: The second question before this Court is whether the Governor possessed the authority under the EPGA to proclaim a state of emergency based on the COVID-19 pandemic after April 30, 2020. 9 Given that we conclude that the Governor did not possess the authority under the EMA to renew her declaration of a state of emergency or state of disaster based on the COVID19 pandemic after April 30, 2020, it is unnecessary for us to decide whether the EMA violates the Michigan Constitution, a question also certified to this Court. 12
MCL 10.31(1) of the EPGA sets forth the circumstances in which the Governor may proclaim a state of emergency and the authorized subject matter of his or her emergency powers: During times of great public crisis, disaster, rioting, catastrophe, or similar public emergency within the state, or reasonable apprehension of immediate danger of a public emergency of that kind, when public safety is imperiled, either upon application of the mayor of a city, sheriff of a county, or the commissioner of the Michigan state police or upon his or her own volition, the governor may proclaim a state of emergency and designate the area involved. After making the proclamation or declaration, the governor may promulgate reasonable orders, rules, and regulations as he or she considers necessary to protect life and property or to bring the emergency situation within the affected area under control. Those orders, rules, and regulations may include, but are not limited to, providing for the control of traffic, including public and private transportation, within the area or any section of the area; designation of specific zones within the area in which occupancy and use of buildings and ingress and egress of persons and vehicles may be prohibited or regulated; control of places of amusement and assembly and of persons on public streets and thoroughfares; establishment of a curfew; control of the sale, transportation, and use of alcoholic beverages and liquors; and control of the storage, use, and transportation of explosives or inflammable materials or liquids deemed to be dangerous to public safety. MCL 10.31(2) of the EPGA sets forth the effectiveness of the emergency powers, including the time at which those powers are no longer in effect: The orders, rules, and regulations promulgated under subsection (1) are effective from the date and in the manner prescribed in the orders, rules, and regulations and shall be made public as provided in the orders, rules, and regulations. The orders, rules, and regulations may be amended, modified, or rescinded, in the manner in which they were promulgated, from time to time by the governor during the pendency of the emergency, but shall cease to be in effect upon declaration by the governor that the emergency no longer exists. 13 MCL 10.32 explains the legislative intentions of the EPGA: It is hereby declared to be the legislative intent to invest the governor with sufficiently broad power of action in the exercise of the police power of the state to provide adequate control over persons and conditions during such periods of impending or actual public crisis or disaster. The provisions of this act shall be broadly construed to effectuate this purpose.[10] Plaintiffs argue that a genuine emergency must necessarily be short-lived and that because our state has been dealing with COVID-19 for more than six months, it is no longer an emergency. We respectfully disagree. “Emergency” is defined as “an urgent need for assistance or relief.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed). Simply because something has been ongoing for some extended period of time does not signify that there is no longer an “urgent need for assistance or relief.” That a fire, for example, has been burning for months does not mean that there is no longer an “urgent need for assistance or relief,” and the same is obviously true of an epidemic. In short, an emergency is an emergency for as long as it persists as an emergency. Furthermore, the Legislature argues that the EPGA only encompasses local-- not statewide-- emergencies. It relies on the fact that the EPGA refers to a public emergency “within the state,” MCL 10.31(1), and contends that a statewide emergency is not “within” the state. Again, we disagree and believe that such a reading does not constitute a reasonable understanding of the language of the statute. “Within” simply means “the inside 10 The EPGA includes two other provisions, neither of which is relevant here. MCL 10.31(3) provides that “Subsection (1) does not authorize the seizure, taking, or confiscation of lawfully possessed firearms, ammunition, or other weapons,” and MCL 10.33 provides that “[t]he violation of any such orders, rules and regulations made in conformity with this act shall be punishable as a misdemeanor, where such order, rule or regulation states that the violation thereof shall constitute a misdemeanor.” 14 of.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed). A statewide emergency is an emergency “within the inside of the state,” with the entirety of Michigan’s counties, cities, and townships fairly described as being located “within the inside of the state.” The Legislature also argues that the EPGA’s references to the “area involved,” the “affected area,” “any section of the area,” and “specific zones within the area” signify that the EPGA was only intended to apply to local emergencies. Again, we disagree and do not find this to be a reasonable understanding of the EPGA. “Area” is defined as “a geographic region.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed). The “area involved” or the “affected area” may comprise the entire state, or it may comprise some more localized geographical part of the state. Indeed, the EMA, which all agree is applicable to statewide emergencies such as the present pandemic, also refers repeatedly to the “threatened area.” See MCL 30.403(3) and (4); MCL 30.405(1)(e) and (g). And that the Governor may promulgate rules that pertain to the “affected area,” to a “section” of the affected area, or to a “specific zone” within the affected area does not indicate that the Governor cannot declare a statewide emergency. It simply means that once the Governor has declared a statewide emergency, she is not obligated to treat the entire state in an identical manner.11 Additionally, both plaintiffs and the Legislature argue that the historical context of the EPGA, enacted in 1945 in response to riots in Detroit in 1943, suggests that it was 11 Plaintiffs also argue that because the EPGA empowers certain local officials to seek an emergency declaration, the concerns of the statute are primarily local in nature. However, the EPGA also empowers the commissioner of the Michigan state police to request such a declaration, and of course, it allows the Governor herself to proclaim a state of emergency upon her own volition. 15 intended to apply only to local emergencies. However, even if an undisputed or a principal purpose of the EPGA was to enable the Governor to respond to a local emergency such as a riot, that does not indicate that enabling the Governor to respond to a local emergency was the EPGA’s exclusive purpose. “[T]he remedy [of a legal provision] often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.” Dist of Columbia v Heller, 554 US 570, 578; 128 S Ct 2783; 171 L Ed 2d 637 (2008) (quotation marks and citations omitted). That is, historical context and rationale, while often helpful in giving reasonable meaning to a statute, cannot ultimately take priority over its actual language. What is dispositive here is that the actual terms of the EPGA do not preclude the Governor from proclaiming a state of emergency in response to a statewide emergency. In House of Representatives v Governor, ___ Mich App___; ___ NW2d ___ (2020) (Docket No. 353655) (TUKEL, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); slip op at 3, Judge TUKEL concluded in a thoughtful dissent that “at least in a case such as this involving an ‘epidemic,’ . . . the EMA’s 28-day time limit controls.” He relied on the fact that the definition of “disaster” within the EMA includes an “epidemic” while the EPGA does not include that term. However, the definition of “disaster” within the EMA includes a variety of examples of types of disasters, and if all of those types of disasters were excluded from the EPGA using Judge TUKEL’s reasoning, the EPGA would be effectively rendered a nullity,12 running afoul of the interpretive maxim that “a court should avoid a construction 12 The EMA defines “disaster” as “an occurrence or threat of widespread or severe damage, injury, or loss of life or property resulting from a natural or human-made cause, including, but not limited to, fire, flood, snowstorm, ice storm, tornado, windstorm, wave action, oil spill, water contamination, utility failure, hazardous peacetime radiological incident, major 16 that would render any part of the statute surplusage or nugatory.” In re MCI Telecom Complaint, 460 Mich 396, 414; 596 NW2d 164 (1999). Such an understanding of the EPGA would also run afoul of the EMA, which provides, in pertinent part: This act shall not be construed to do any of the following: