Opinion ID: 4572792
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: constitutional doubt

Text: If, after all this, I had any lingering doubts about the meaning of the statute, then, as plaintiffs point out, I would still be forced to choose the narrower interpretation. That is because it avoids the grave constitutional questions raised by the Governor’s exceedingly broad reading of the statute. “ ‘When the validity of an act . . . is drawn in question, and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided.’ ” Workman v Detroit Auto Inter-Ins Exch, 404 Mich 477, 508; 274 NW2d 373 (1979), quoting Ashwander v Tennessee Valley Auth, 297 US 288, 348; 56 S Ct 466; 80 L Ed 688 (1936). This principle, known as the constitutional-doubt canon, “rests on the reasonable presumption that Congress did not intend the alternative which raises serious constitutional doubts.” Clark v Martinez, 543 US 371, 381; 125 S Ct 716; 160 L Ed 2d 734 (2005).18 In the remaining few states, the respective governors have invoked statutes that at least arguably define emergencies or disasters with enough breadth to cover public health. See Neb Rev Stat 81-829.39(2) and (3) (defining “emergency” and “disaster” to mean, in relevant part, “any event or the imminent threat thereof causing serious damage, injury, or loss of life or property resulting from any natural or manmade cause”); Mo Rev Stat 44.010 (defining emergencies to include natural disasters that affect the “safety and welfare” of the residents, including things like bioterrorism); NH Stat 21-P:35(VIII) (defining “state of emergency” as a “condition, situation, or set of circumstances deemed to be so extremely hazardous or dangerous to life or property that it is necessary and essential to invoke, require, or utilize extraordinary measures, actions, and procedures to lessen or mitigate possible harm”). 18 This rule of interpretation is often invoked alongside a separate rule of judicial procedure: the rule of constitutional avoidance. See Reading Law, p 251. The latter rule is also deeply rooted in our constitutional jurisprudence. See Powell v Eldred, 39 Mich 552, 553 (1878) (“It is a cardinal principle with courts not to pass upon the constitutionality of acts of the Legislature, unless where necessary to a determination of the case.”). Courts should be 24 Here, plaintiffs claim that the statute, under the Governor’s interpretation, would violate the separation of powers by improperly delegating legislative authority and by failing to articulate standards to guide the Governor’s exercise of the statutory power. Our Constitution divides the powers of government among the three branches and states that “[n]o person exercising powers of one branch shall exercise powers properly belonging to another branch except as expressly provided in this constitution.” Const 1963, art 3, § 2. As I explain below, I believe that if the Governor’s and the majority’s interpretation is correct, then the EPGA is in trouble. The spin the Governor and the majority give the statute allows her to wield staggering powers across the entire terrain of our lives and our laws. And once declared, an emergency ends only when she says it ends. Until then, the Governor has vast powers. Using these powers here, she has unilaterally suspended statutes and determined which businesses can open, what they can sell, and how they can sell it; which homes residents can use; whether and how people socialize; what outdoor reluctant—and indeed should refuse—“to undertake the most important and the most delicate of the Court’s functions . . . until necessity compels it in the performance of constitutional duty.” Rescue Army v Muni Court of Los Angeles, 331 US 549, 569; 67 S Ct 1409; 91 L Ed 1666 (1947). The rule of constitutional avoidance protects the separation of powers. See id. at 570 (noting that the rule is “basic to the federal system and this Court’s appropriate place within that structure”); id. at 571 (noting that the rule is founded on, among other things, “the necessity, if government is to function constitutionally, for each to keep within its power, including the courts”). Indeed, we have said that the “avoidance of unnecessary constitutional issues” is a core aspect of “judicial power.” Nat’l Wildlife Federation v Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co, 471 Mich 608, 614-615; 684 NW2d 800 (2004), rev’d on other grounds by Lansing Sch Ed Ass’n, MEA/NEA v Lansing Bd of Ed, 487 Mich 349 (2010); see also Mich Citizens for Water Conservation v Nestlé Waters North America Inc, 479 Mich 280, 292-293; 737 NW2d 447 (2007) (citing Nat’l Wildlife’s definition of “judicial power” and stating that preservation of the separation of powers depends on the judiciary confining itself to this definition), rev’d on other grounds by Lansing Sch, 487 Mich 349. 25 recreation is acceptable; what medical services individuals can obtain; and much more besides.19 All of this raises serious doubts about the statute’s constitutionality. Indeed, below I explain that, assuming the Governor and the majority are correct on what the statute means, I agree with the majority that the EPGA constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. But I would avoid these determinations by adopting the more reasonable (and, in my opinion, clearly correct) interpretation above.