Opinion ID: 2211907
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis of the majority opinion

Text: For the most part, I concur with the analysis adopted in the majority opinion. I, too, am troubled by the Legislature's apparent attempt to interpret a prior statute adopted by a prior Legislature. This is doubly distressing in light of our intervening decision in Franks v White Pine Copper, 422 Mich 636; 375 NW2d 715 (1985). Because the Legislature may not interpret its own statute, let alone that of a prior Legislature, I agree with the majority that the 1987 legislation must be viewed as a retroactive amendment rather than as a legislative interpretation of an earlier statute. This is the effect of the 1987 legislation, and courts, which must presume statutes to be constitutional, are required to look beyond form to the substance of the challenged legislation. [3] As stated earlier, I find no principled basis for concluding that the 1987 amendments fail the rational basis tests articulated by the United States Supreme Court; since appellants have not offered a persuasive reason for giving a broader interpretation to the Due Process Clause of the state constitution, I agree that appellants' due process claims fail. [4] I also agree with the majority that the appellants cannot show any sort of reliance on the prior state of the law. I would not, however, go so far as to hold the possibility of reasonable reliance foreclosed by the mere fact that the Legislature debated changing the law before doing so. I do not agree with the majority's cursory discussion and conclusion, ante, pp 531-532, that the amendments in this case are remedial. That term, in my view, should be used with caution, lest every amendment be deemed remedial. The majority has not persuaded me that the amendments at issue in this case should be so categorized. Finally, I would not analyze appellants' Contract Clause argument as if that clause applied in this case. I therefore concur in the analysis and holding of § II(A), but not in those of § II(B). In all other respects, I concur in the result and analysis of the majority opinion. RILEY, C.J. I respectfully dissent from the majority. In my opinion, the Legislature has invaded the constitutional authority granted to the judicial branch and usurped the judicial function of determining the proper construction of a statute. It is within the power of this Court, not the Legislature, to interpret the legislative intent of 1981 PA 203. Therefore, I would conclude that 1987 PA 28, § 354(17)-(20), violates art 3, § 2 and art 6, § 1 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963. Accordingly, I would hold that 1987 PA 28, § 354(17)-(20) is to be applied prospectively from its effective date, May 14, 1987.