Home>Articles>Michigan Supreme Court Ruling Boosts CA Lawsuit Against Gov. Newsom’s ‘One Man Rule’

Governor Gavin Newsom. (Photo: Kevin Sanders for California Globe)

Michigan Supreme Court Ruling Boosts CA Lawsuit Against Gov. Newsom’s ‘One Man Rule’

Court’s opinion closely resembles Kiley and Gallagher’s briefing to the California Court

By Katy Grimes, October 5, 2020 7:19 am

The Michigan Supreme Court on Friday struck down the 1945 law that Governor Gretchen Whitmer has been using to keep the state in lockdown since April.

In September, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled that Governor Tom Wolf’s lockdown orders were unconstitutional, violating both the First and 14th Amendments.

This is significant because California Assemblymen Kevin Kiley and James Gallagher are suing to stop California Governor Gavin Newsom’s “one man rule.”

Assemblymen James Gallagher and Kevin Kiley. (Photo: Facebook)

“The Michigan Supreme Court has just struck down their Emergency Powers of the Governor Act as unconstitutional, adopting the very arguments we are making in our case against Gov. Newsom,” Kiley wrote. “This decision is a major boost to our case.”

“The Michigan ruling terminates all of the Governor’s emergency orders. It is undoubtedly the most important decision yet. And it comes just two days after we told the California Court that ‘the time for a judicial check has arrived, as has already occurred in numerous other states.’”

Breitbart reported:

A group called “Unlock Michigan” lead a petition drive to repeal the same 1945 law. On Friday, the group submitted 593,000 signatures to force a vote by the legislature, Mlive reported.

“We argued from the beginning that unlimited powers for a politician were a terrible idea. Today, we know that they are also unconstitutional,” spokesman Fred Wszolek told Breitbart.

Breitbart explained the Michigan case:

The Court concluded the Emergency Powers of Governor Act:

…is in violation of the Constitution of our state because it purports to delegate to the executive branch the legislative powers of state government–including its plenary police powers–and to allow the exercise of such powers indefinitely. As a consequence, the EPGA cannot continue to provide a basis for the Governor to exercise emergency powers.

Kiley and Gallagher explain their lawsuit:

“We are asking the court for two things: (1) “a judgment that the Executive Order so issued is null and void”; (2), a court order stopping the Governor from further exercising any “legislative powers in violation of the California Constitution.”

We were limited to 15 pages, although we are also filing a separate 15-page Opposition to the Governor’s own brief. Here’s how ours begins:

In the case before the Court, Defendant Gavin Newsom declares that the six-month-and-counting State of Emergency centralizes the State’s powers in the hands of the Governor. This disquieting claim belies California law and defies America’s first principles.

We then set forth the constitutional basis for the Court to step in:

The authors of California’s Constitution learned the lesson of America’s founding even better than the Founders themselves, enshrining an explicit separation-of-powers provision.  A California Governor is constitutionally forbidden from doing the very thing Gov. Newsom has done here: exercise legislative powers.”

“Reading the Court’s opinion was a surreal experience since it so closely resembles our own briefing to the California Court,” Kiley said. “In fact, the Michigan Supreme Court uses the exact quote from the Federalist Papers with which we began our dispositive brief:

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

Most importantly as Kiley notes, the Separation-of-Powers provision of Michigan’s Constitution is almost identical, word for word, to the one in California’s Constitution.

Kiley concludes: “In our case, Newsom now faces a’“heads you win, tails I lose scenario.’ If the Court agrees with our statutory arguments, Newsom will be found to have violated the Constitution.  But even if the Court buys his arguments, by the reasoning of the Michigan case the statute itself will be found unconstitutional.”

Read Kiley’s blog post HERE.

Read Breitbart’s account of the Michigan Case HERE.

Read California Globe’s articles about Kiley and Gallagher’s lawsuit HERE.

Spread the news:

 RELATED ARTICLES

11 thoughts on “Michigan Supreme Court Ruling Boosts CA Lawsuit Against Gov. Newsom’s ‘One Man Rule’

  1. I’m rooting for this to succeed, but my optimism is tempered somewhat by the key difference between the Michigan “riot act” and California’s own emergency powers laws. In California, the legislature can end the emergency at any time with a simple continuing resolution… (I believe Rep. Kiley has advanced such a resolution) in Michigan, the only viable path for relief was a citizen-led repeal initiative or a repeal by the legislature, including an veto override — both difficult and lengthy paths, especially during a lockdown when (a) citizen organizing is more difficult and (b) the legislature may be unable to meet due to restrictions put in place by the executive branch.

    The lack of of an effective relief mechanism is why the law was ruled an unconstitutional delegation of powers. I’m not convinced those same set of circumstances exist in California.

    With that said, I remain very interested in reading Rep. Kiley and Rep. Gallagher’s brief.

  2. Immediately thought of California when I heard about the Michigan case and hoped the same thing would happen here. Best of luck to Asm Kiley and Asm Gallagher.

  3. Biggest hurdle is that California is under totalitarian rule. Single Party runs the entire state and pushes at every level their agenda.

      1. So you really believe that temporary measures to stop the spread of a new viral disease which is sweeping the world in a pandemic, measures such as wearing a mask and closing some business that has people in close contact for significant period of time, these measures and rules, you claim are crimes against humanity?

        Trying to fight a pandemic of which there is no cure by trying to slow and stop the spread of it is the greatest crime against humanity ever? Really! You really believe that!? It is greater than Germany’s genocide against Jews, Poles, Roma and Disabled people and Soviet civilians that killed about 11 Million people; it is even greater than Stalin’s purges that killed several million more Soviet citizens; and it is greater than the killings of several million Cambodian civilians in Khmer Rouge/Pol Pot regime; do you also believe it is worse than the United States, Republican, sponsored overthrow of the elected government of Chile in 1973 that caused the executions of over 2,000 people, the torture of 30,000 and exile of 200,000 more and gave Chile a military dictator – Pinochet, and all the human rights that goes with dictators, for decades.

        I suggest you need a grasp of reality outside of Fox News and the Conservative pundits if you believe that anything going on in California in a health crisis even begins to come anywhere near these true human rights abuses.

  4. Nothing will stop the CTA from stonewalling any attempt to return kids to full-time school without crippling restrictions and further banning of charter school initiatives. They are not about to let this crisis go to waste, especially with an electorate so full of morons.

  5. This is not a permanent state! We could have been done with this had we had an effective response from our federal government the and cooperation of our citizens. The counties were unable to manage the virus when they had more local control and now California has the most cases in the country! Stop whining and be part of the solution rather than the problem.

  6. If the author had used some other source outside of “Brietbart” for information relating to the this Michigan Supreme Court ruling, something less partisan perhaps, the reader would be informed of a very questionable issue or two in this case and how it might relate to the 49 other states who also have emergency orders declared.

    For some strange reason the Michigan Supreme Court did not base its ruling on The Michigan Constitution of 1963, which by the way was helped to be re-written by Republican George Romney to give more power to the Governor in times of emergency, it would seem. No , the court in this case seemed to entirely base its ruling on a theory in law and the explicit writings, which the court quoted, in a dissenting opinion by United States Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch, writing in 5-3 opinion on non-delegation of powers which the Supreme Court has been unwilling to touch since 1935, Gorsuch wrote for himself and two other Justices, that he believed The Court should take up that issue in that sex crimes case before The Court.

    What any of this has to do with Michigan state law and constitution is the question. Last anyone with any intelligence understood – minority dissenting opinions in The Supreme Court did not become legal precedent and justification for rulings on State Constitutions and Powers of Governors.

    Informing the readers of this fact would help them understand how unique and possibly out of bounds this decision is and how it may not go forward in other States, like California.

  7. Is this so called non-partisan news site afraid of non-ultra conservative comments? Or what was the issue as to why two of my comments and reply’s have disappeared?

    Since I wrote nothing bad or used foul language and gave an informative comment, I am sending it again. As a former photo-journalist who has experienced alot of censorship, let see how that goes on your website, today…..

    If the author had used some other source outside of “Brietbart” for information relating to the this Michigan Supreme Court ruling, something less partisan perhaps, the reader would be informed of a very questionable issue or two in this case and how it might relate to the 49 other states who also have emergency orders declared.
    For some strange reason the Michigan Supreme Court did not base its ruling on The Michigan Constitution of 1963, which by the way was helped to be re-written by Republican George Romney to give more power to the Governor in times of emergency, it would seem.
    No , the court in this case seemed to entirely base its ruling on a theory in law and the explicit writings, which the court quoted, in a dissenting opinion by United States Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch, writing in 5-3 opinion on non-delegation of powers which the Supreme Court has been unwilling to touch since 1935, Gorsuch wrote for himself and two other Justices, that he believed The Court should take up that issue in that sex crimes case before The Court.
    What any of this has to do with Michigan state law and constitution is the question. Last anyone with any intelligence understood – minority dissenting opinions in The Supreme Court did not become legal precedent and justification for rulings on State Constitutions and Powers of Governors.

    Informing the readers of this fact would help them understand how unique and possibly out of bounds this decision is and how it may not go forward in other States, like California.

  8. Great news today!! Court sided with Kiley and Gallagher over Newsom abuse of power!!!
    Don’t vote Biden-we had enough of these democratic enforcement. Never again.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *