Opinion ID: 2168838
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Westervelt v. Natural Resources Commission

Text: Michigan law supports a finding of APA constitutionality. This Court, in Westervelt v. Natural Resources Comm., 402 Mich. 412, 440, 263 N.W.2d 564 (1978), offered the following definition of legislation: the concept of `legislation,' in its essential sense, is the power to speak on any subject without any specified limitations. Under this definition, I would conclude that the JCAR review process does not constitute legislation because the JCAR's power is clearly limited by the terms of the APA. Westervelt 's definition of legislation is noticeably absent from the lead opinion. Although Westervelt was a plurality opinion, I find its reasoning useful, and would take guidance from the wisdom of our predecessors. I cannot agree with the lead opinion's casual dismissal of Westervelt nor its conclusion that the JCAR is empowered to act without limitation. Rather, Westervelt's discussion of legislation sprang from a long line of cases that support a conclusion contrary to that reached by the lead opinion. The lead opinion makes various references to actions that are legislative in nature, but fails to distinguish a legislative action from legislation. Instead, the lead opinion concludes, without citing any authority, that [w]hen the Legislature engages in `legislative action' it must do so by enacting legislation. Op. at 538. To the contrary, Michigan law recognizes that actions that are legislative in nature do not necessarily constitute legislation. Westervelt, supra at 440-441, 263 N.W.2d 564. In Michigan, the delegation doctrine provides that the Legislature may delegate power that is legislative in nature but may not delegate the ability to create legislation. Id. Westervelt was thus an example of the delegation doctrine in action. There, this Court determined that the executive branch did not usurp legislative power in violation of the separation of powers doctrine when it promulgated rules in compliance with the APA precisely because there is a distinction between a legislative act and legislation. Id. If there were no distinction, the Legislature could not validly delegate its authority. See, e.g., Osius v. St. Clair Shores, 344 Mich. 693, 75 N.W.2d 25 (1956). Moreover, Michigan cases that have commented on legislative acts support the APA as a valid procedural mechanism serving to ensure that delegations of authority to the executive branch are not unconstitutionally broad. Clonlara, supra ; Turmon, supra ; Michigan Farm Bureau v. Bureau of Workmen's Compensation, 408 Mich. 141, 289 N.W.2d 699 (1980).