HOUGHTON — On Oct. 2, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s office issued a release in which the governor she vehemently disagrees with the decision with the Michigan Supreme Court’s interpretation of the state constitution, blaming Republican judges for the ruling.

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling, handed down by a narrow majority of Republican justices, is deeply disappointing,” said Whitmer in the release, “and I vehemently disagree with the court’s interpretation of the Michigan Constitution. Right now, every state and the federal government have some form of declared emergency. With this decision, Michigan will become the sole outlier at a time when the Upper Peninsula is experiencing rates of COVID infection not seen in our state since April.”

The ruling of the Supreme Court, however, did not center on the rates of COVID-19 infection in the state, but rather on the constitutionality of the laws by which the governor declared states of emergency and issued executive orders.

The Opinion of the Supreme Court, filed on Oct. 2 decided that the governor did not possess the authority under the Emergency Management Act of 1976 to declare a state of emergency or a state of disaster based on the pandemic after April 30, 2020, and that she did not possess the authority to exercise emergency powers under the Emergency Powers of the Government Act (EMPGA of 1945, because that law is an unlawful delegation of legislative power to the executive branch, in violation of the Michigan Constitution.

“Accordingly,” the opinion reads, “the executive orders issued by the governor in response to the COVID-19 pandemic now lack any basis under Michigan law.”

In a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Bridget McCormack said she would have let the law stand, even if it “gives a governor sole authority to ‘exercise the whole of the state’s police power in some emergencies.'”

Whitmer’s Friday response to ruling, however, went on to state that the opinion of the Supreme Court does not immediately strike down her executive orders.

“It is important to note that this ruling does not take effect for at least 21 days, and until then, my emergency declaration and orders retain the force of law,” she stated. “Furthermore, after 21 days, many of the responsive measures I have put in place to control the spread of the virus will continue under alternative sources of authority that were not at issue in today’s ruling.”

Judge Aaron Gauthier of the 53rd Circuit Court of Michigan, however, challenged Whitmer’s declaration, stating on social media Saturday that the governor is incorrect.

“The 21 days she is referring to has to do with when a judgment is entered in the particular case before the court, and when the deadline is to file a motion for rehearing,” the judge stated. “But the legal rule announced by the Supreme Court in an opinion is the law of the State of Michigan the moment it is announced.”

The judge went on to explain that if the court held an opinion that it was unconstitutional for the police to search a vehicle without a warrant, that does not allow the police the right to to conducted unconstitutional and illegal searches for 21 days.

“The citizenry would rightly be outraged. It is similarly outrageous for the governor to claim that she can continue to violate the constitution for another 21 days,” he explained. “Every single judge in the state of Michigan is legally obligated to follow the Supreme Court’s opinion as of this moment forward.”

He also added, “Directly from the opinion: ‘Accordingly, the executive orders issued by the governor in response to the COVID-19 pandemic now lack any basis under Michigan law.’ Notice the word ‘now.'”

After the court ruling on Friday, the Department of Justice released a statement, which said, in part:

“The United States Constitution guarantees a republican form of government to every state in our free country. The constitution does not permit any public official unlawfully to restrict our liberty. All public officials must respect the right of the people to govern themselves at all times, especially during a crisis.”

The release stated that on May 29, the DOJ filed a statement of interest in a Michigan federal court, in support of a lawsuit filed by seven businesses challenging the restrictions imposed by Governor Gretchen Whitmer in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. That statement of interest explained that the governor’s COVID-19 orders, however well-intentioned, raised constitutional concerns by imposing what appeared to be arbitrary and unreasonable limits on how and ultimately whether certain businesses could operate in Michigan relative to other similarly situated businesses. The statement of interest also explained that the federal Constitution provides for a cohesive national economy for all 50 states and all Americans and that the governor’s COVID-19 orders may be unduly interfering with interstate commerce.

On June 23, 2020, the release continued, Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband, U.S. Attorney Matthew Schneider, and Andrew Birge wrote to Whitmer to express their concerns about the governor’s restrictions on the civil rights and liberties of the people of Michigan as part of her response to the COVID-19 pandemic:

“We write in the spirit of constructive cooperation to suggest greater cooperation with the Michigan legislature,” the release reads. “Michiganders have raised numerous good-faith concerns about the orders you have issued–about whether they are authorized under state law, infringe on constitutional rights, or draw arbitrary and irrational distinctions among authorized and unauthorized economic activities. Working with the state legislature to reopen Michigan safely will relieve the public of concerns about the EMA and ensure greater representation of the people in matters that have serious consequences for their liberty. Such cooperation may also help identify any potential constitutional concerns with existing and any future orders. Further, and perhaps most importantly, working with the state legislature will affirm that Michigan and its public officials remain committed to the ‘Republican Form of Government’ mandated by the United States Constitution. U.S. Const., Art. IV, §4.”