Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) filed a petition in the Wayne Circuit Court to take jurisdiction over a minor, DVL, from the respondent-mother under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) or (2). DVL, who had a history of mental illness, was taken to St. John Hospital after attempting to start a fire and threatening suicide. The hospital cleared DVL for discharge without treatment, recommending intensive outpatient services. The respondent refused to pick up DVL, citing safety concerns for her other children and herself. The trial court denied the petition, finding no evidence of neglect or abuse by the respondent, who had made numerous efforts to seek help for DVL.The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision in a split unpublished decision, holding that jurisdiction was appropriate under both MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and (2). The majority found that the respondent's actions rendered the home environment dangerous for DVL and her other children, making it statutorily unfit. The respondent sought leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court.The Michigan Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, held that the trial court did not clearly err by refusing to take jurisdiction of DVL under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) or (2). The Court found that the respondent was not "able" to provide necessary care and support for DVL at home due to the danger he posed to himself and others. Additionally, the respondent's refusal to take DVL home was not considered neglectful, as she acted as a reasonably prudent person would under the circumstances. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision and remanded the case to the trial court for reinstatement of its order denying DHHS's petition. View "In Re Lange" on Justia Law

James Stefanski, a former employee of Saginaw County 911 Communications Center Authority, alleged that he was constructively discharged in retaliation for reporting his supervisor's gross negligence. The incident in question involved a 911 call where the supervisor coded the call as "shots fired" instead of "someone shot," resulting in a delayed emergency medical response and the subsequent death of a woman. Stefanski reported his concerns to the director, who dismissed them as a judgment call. Following this, Stefanski experienced increased stress, missed work, and eventually resigned after being suspended for excessive absences, which he believed was a pretext for retaliation.The Saginaw Circuit Court granted summary disposition to the defendant, ruling that reporting gross negligence, a common law violation, was not protected under the Whistleblowers' Protection Act (WPA). The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, relying on a precedent that reporting common law violations, such as malpractice, does not fall under the WPA's protections.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the term "law" in the WPA includes the common law. The court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to determine whether gross negligence is a violation of "a" law under the WPA and whether Stefanski's actions constituted a report under the statute. The Supreme Court emphasized that the WPA should be liberally construed to protect whistleblowers and that excluding common law from its scope would undermine its purpose. View "Stefanski v. Saginaw County 911 Communications Center Authority" on Justia Law

Praxis Packaging Solutions, operating a manufacturing facility, applied for a tax exemption for its manufacturing equipment under Michigan law. The Township of Byron's assessor denied the application, stating the equipment did not meet the statutory definition of eligible manufacturing personal property (EMPP). The denial notice informed Praxis of its right to appeal to the March Board of Review but did not provide specific deadlines or meeting dates. Praxis's agents contacted the assessor for appeal details but were not informed of the deadlines. Praxis submitted an appeal letter after the Board had adjourned, and the Board did not consider the appeal.The Michigan Tax Tribunal dismissed Praxis's petition for lack of jurisdiction, as Praxis had not first appealed to the Board. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Township's notice did not meet statutory requirements and deprived Praxis of due process, thus vesting the Tribunal with jurisdiction.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the Township's notice did not violate due process. The Court found that the notice, combined with the separate notice of assessment, provided sufficient information about the appeal process. The Court emphasized that due process requires notice reasonably calculated to inform the taxpayer and provide an opportunity to be heard. Since Praxis received actual notice of the Board's meeting dates and the appeal process, the Court concluded that there was no due process violation.The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals judgment and reinstated the Tax Tribunal's dismissal of Praxis's petition for lack of jurisdiction, as Praxis failed to timely protest the exemption denial before the Board. View "Sixarp LLC v. Township Of Byron" on Justia Law

Two companies, Dine Brands Global, Inc. and The Walt Disney Company, filed separate lawsuits against the Michigan State Treasurer, Rachael Eubanks, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (UUPA). The Treasurer had initiated multistate examinations of the companies' records to check compliance with the UUPA's reporting and remittance requirements. The examinations, conducted by Kelmar Associates, LLC, identified unclaimed property dating back to 2002. The companies disputed the findings and argued that the statute of limitations barred the Treasurer from collecting the identified property.The Oakland Circuit Court granted summary disposition in favor of the companies, ruling that the examinations were not "actions or proceedings" under the UUPA and did not toll the statute of limitations. The court enjoined the Treasurer from enforcing the collection of the disputed property. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's judgments, agreeing that the examinations did not toll the statute of limitations.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the phrase "action or proceeding" in the UUPA includes both formal lawsuits and administrative procedures like examinations. However, the Court also held that the commencement of an examination does not toll the statute of limitations. The Court noted that the statute of limitations continues to run during an examination and that the Treasurer must initiate an examination within the applicable time frame.The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decisions that excluded examinations from the definition of "action or proceeding." The Court remanded the cases to the Court of Appeals to determine whether a holder's duty to comply with the results of an examination is distinct from the annual duty to report and remit unclaimed property, which would affect the statute of limitations for post-examination enforcement actions. View "Dine Brands Global Inc v. Eubanks" on Justia Law

The City of East Lansing entered into an agreement with the Lansing Board of Water and Light (LBWL) in 2016, which included a franchise fee to be charged to LBWL consumers residing within the City. The fee was collected by LBWL and remitted to the City. Plaintiff James Heos, representing a class of LBWL consumers, filed a complaint against the City, alleging that the franchise fee was an illegal tax under the Michigan Constitution's Headlee Amendment and other state laws.The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of the plaintiff on most counts, ruling that the franchise fee was an illegal tax. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed this decision, directing the trial court to grant summary disposition in favor of the City, concluding that the plaintiff was not a taxpayer and thus his claim was time-barred.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the franchise fee was indeed a tax because it was used for general revenue-raising purposes, was not proportionate to any costs incurred by the City, and was not voluntary. The Court further held that the plaintiff was a taxpayer because the legal incidence of the fee fell on the LBWL consumers, not LBWL itself. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings, allowing the plaintiff to pursue his Headlee Amendment claim. View "Heos v. City Of East Lansing" on Justia Law

The case involves two groups of plaintiffs challenging several provisions in a 2022 manual issued by the Secretary of State, which provided instructions for election challengers and poll watchers. The plaintiffs argued that the provisions conflicted with the Michigan Election Law or required formal rulemaking under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The Court of Claims consolidated the cases and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on several points, finding that certain provisions of the manual were invalid under Michigan law.The Court of Claims found that the manual's requirements for election-challenger credentials, the communication restrictions between challengers and election inspectors, the categorization of challenges as permissible or impermissible, and the prohibition of electronic devices in absent voter ballot processing facilities violated the Michigan Election Law. The court ordered the Secretary of State to either rescind or revise the manual to comply with its opinion. The defendants appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and issued a mixed ruling. The court held that the Secretary of State has the authority to require a uniform form for election-challenger credentials and that this requirement does not conflict with the Michigan Election Law. The court also upheld the manual's communication restrictions, except for the requirement that challengers at absent voter ballot processing facilities must raise issues to a challenger liaison who is not an election inspector. The court found that the categorization of challenges as permissible or impermissible was generally lawful but invalidated the provision allowing a challenger liaison to deem a challenge impermissible based on their assessment of its validity. The court declared the challenge to the prohibition of electronic devices moot due to subsequent statutory amendments and vacated the lower court's opinions on that issue. View "O'Halloran v. Secretary of State" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the issuance of medical marijuana dispensary licenses in the city of Warren. In 2019, the Warren City Council adopted an ordinance to regulate these licenses, which involved a Review Committee scoring and ranking applications. The Review Committee held 16 closed meetings to review 65 applications and made recommendations to the city council, which then approved the top 15 applicants without further discussion. Plaintiffs, who were denied licenses, sued, alleging violations of the Open Meetings Act (OMA) and due process.The Macomb Circuit Court found that the Review Committee violated the OMA and invalidated the licenses issued by the city council. The court held that the Review Committee was a public body subject to the OMA and that the city council's approval process was flawed. Defendants and intervening defendants appealed, and the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that the Review Committee was not a public body under the OMA because it only had an advisory role, and the city council retained final decision-making authority. The appellate court also upheld the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' due process claims.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court held that the Review Committee was a public body subject to the OMA because it effectively decided which applicants would receive licenses by scoring and ranking them, and the city council merely adopted these recommendations without independent consideration. The court emphasized that the actual operation of the Review Committee, rather than just the language of the ordinance, determined its status as a public body. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals to consider whether the open meetings held by the Review Committee cured the OMA violations and to address other preserved issues. View "Pinebrook Warren LLC v. City Of Warren" on Justia Law

In 2018, Michigan's Legislature received initiative petitions proposing the Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act and the Earned Sick Time Act. The Legislature adopted these initiatives without changes, preventing them from appearing on the ballot. However, during the lame duck session after the election, the Legislature significantly amended both laws, effectively nullifying their original intent.The plaintiffs challenged these amendments in the Court of Claims, arguing they were unconstitutional under Article 2, § 9 of the Michigan Constitution. The Court of Claims agreed, ruling that the Legislature could not adopt and then amend an initiative in the same session. The court declared the amendments void and reinstated the original initiatives. The state appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the decision, holding that the Legislature could amend an initiative in the same session since the Constitution did not explicitly prohibit it.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that Article 2, § 9 provides the Legislature with only three options upon receiving a valid initiative petition: adopt it without change, reject it, or propose an alternative to be voted on alongside the original. The Court ruled that adopting and then amending an initiative in the same session violated the people's right to propose and enact laws through the initiative process. Consequently, the amendments were declared unconstitutional. The Court ordered that the original initiatives would go into effect 205 days after the opinion's publication, with adjustments for inflation and a revised schedule for minimum wage increases. The Court of Appeals' judgment was reversed. View "Mothering Justice v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The case involves the Michigan Farm Bureau and other agricultural entities challenging new conditions imposed by the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) in a 2020 general permit for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). The new conditions included stricter limits on phosphorus application, setback requirements, and a presumptive ban on waste application during certain months. The plaintiffs argued that these conditions exceeded EGLE’s statutory authority, were contrary to state and federal law, lacked factual justification, were arbitrary and capricious, unconstitutional, and invalid due to procedural failures under the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act (APA).Initially, the plaintiffs sought a contested-case hearing to challenge the permit but then filed for declaratory judgment in the Court of Claims. EGLE moved for summary disposition, arguing that the plaintiffs had not exhausted administrative remedies. The Court of Claims agreed, dismissing the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision but held that the plaintiffs could seek a declaratory judgment under MCL 24.264, provided they first requested a declaratory ruling from EGLE, which they had not done.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the 2020 general permit and its discretionary conditions were not "rules" under the APA because EGLE lacked the statutory authority to issue rules related to NPDES permits for CAFOs. Consequently, the Court of Claims lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under MCL 24.264. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals but vacated its holding that the discretionary conditions were rules. The Court emphasized that EGLE must genuinely evaluate the necessity of discretionary conditions in individual cases and that these conditions do not have the force and effect of law. View "Michigan Farm Bureau v. Dept. Of Environment Great Lakes And Energy" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, current or retired public school superintendents and administrators, filed a lawsuit against the Office of Retirement Services (ORS) alleging that ORS violated the Public School Employees Retirement Act by using salary schedules it created to determine their retirement allowances. The plaintiffs, who worked under personal employment contracts rather than collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), argued that the Retirement Act did not authorize ORS to create these normal salary increase (NSI) schedules and apply them to their pension calculations.The Court of Claims granted summary disposition in favor of the defendants on all claims except for a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). After cross-motions for summary disposition, the Court of Claims also ruled in favor of the defendants on the APA claim. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that ORS lacked statutory authority to create NSI schedules and that MCL 38.1303a(3)(f) did not apply to employees under personal employment contracts. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the lack of authority for ORS to create NSI schedules but reversed the Court of Appeals' interpretation of MCL 38.1303a(3)(f), remanding the case for further proceedings.The Michigan Supreme Court held that the term "normal salary schedule" is a written document established by statute or approved by a reporting unit’s governing body, indicating the time and sequence of compensation, and applying to a generally applicable job classification rather than a specific employee. The Court clarified that this term is not limited to CBAs and applies to public school employees regardless of their employment contract type. The case was remanded to the Court of Claims to determine whether the plaintiffs were subject to a normal salary schedule as defined. View "Batista v. Office Of Retirement Services" on Justia Law