Court Opinion

ID: 9722052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:15:39.442041+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:30.221100
License: Public Domain

Cavanagh, J.
(concurring). I concur in the result reached by the majority only because I am convinced that the framers of the constitution did not have health care premiums in mind when they adopted Const 1963, art 9, §24. Consequently, a definition of "financial benefits” that does not embrace the payment of health care premiums would not present a constitutional problem.
I disagree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that "this Court is without authority to order the relief requested by plaintiffs in any event.” Ante at 662. The three cases cited by the majority to support this conclusion all stand for the proposition that the courts of this state "have no jurisdiction to review any action performed by a governor under the power conferred upon him either by the Constitution or legislative enactment.” Born v Dillman, 264 Mich 440, 444; 250 NW 282 (1933); Germaine v Governor, 176 Mich 585, 588; 142 NW 738 (1913); Sutherland v Governor, 29 Mich 320, *669323 (1874). In such a setting, the possibility of a collision between the executive and legislative departments of the government is of grave concern. See Dillman, supra at 448.
However, in this case, we have not been asked to review any action of the Governor that was undertaken under power conferred upon him either by the constitution or legislative enactment. We were asked to review steps taken by the Governor that were allegedly in violation of the constitution. In that context, "[a]s regards the Executive, . . . the courts can and will issue mandamus to enforce rights conferred by the 1963 Constitution.” Kosa v State Treasurer, 408 Mich 356, 383; 292 NW2d 452 (1980).