The Michigan Supreme Court has refused to hear a case filed by a business group that wants the state to compensate its members for losses due to state-ordered COVID-19 restrictions early in the pandemic.

The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case leaves in place a lower court decision that the Macomb County Restaurant, Bar and Banquet Association, unlike its members, was not directly affected by COVID orders and, therefore, does not have standing to sue.

The order from the Michigan Supreme Court was unsigned, but Republican-nominated Justice David Viviano wrote a dissent. He said the question of “associational standing” in the case is worth considering. He also wrote a decision from the court could provide guidance on the limits of state powers in future health emergencies.

Viviano wrote there could be some situations where an association can represent members’ interests without requiring individual businesses to file lawsuits.

“Plaintiff has made a persuasive argument that its interest as an association is sufficient for that purpose,” he wrote. “This is a jurisprudentially significant issue that I believe warrants our careful consideration.”

It is more typical for individual plaintiffs to file lawsuits while organizations representing specific interests can file “amicus” briefs with a court.

Sam Backos is a restaurant owner and a board member of the Macomb County Restaurant, Bar and Banquet Association. He told the Michigan Public Radio Network that a legal technicality should not keep the case from being heard.

“We look at it as, what’s the difference?” he said. “We’re filing a collective argument here to seek some relief. Nobody is discussing the merits of our case. They’re saying, no, you don’t have standing, which we disagree with.”

The Supreme Court order effectively upholds a Michigan Court of Appeals decision from October of 2022, which held a lower court “correctly concluded that plaintiff was not the real party in interest and was not the proper party to bring monetary claims on behalf of its members. Plaintiff made no assertion that the executive orders restricting the food-service industry affected the legal rights of plaintiff itself. That is, it failed to identify any actual controversy between itself and defendants.”

Backos said the Michigan Supreme Court order may have wrapped up the case in state courts, but is not the final word. He said his organization plans to take the case next to the U.S. Supreme and will file early next year.

The Michigan Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision next year on a case that will help determine the rules on environmental cleanup of a class of “forever chemicals” in drinking water.

The court heard arguments Wednesday that are part of the state’s long-running battle with the manufacturer 3M over cleaning up PFAS contamination.

Subscribe to The Metro on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, NPR.org or wherever you get your podcasts.

PFAS are a family of chemicals that have become ubiquitous in our environment because of their widespread use in things like clothing, cookware, food packaging, building materials, firefighting foam and more. These chemicals  have been linked to cancer, they don’t break down, and they have contaminated our food, lakes, rivers and groundwater.

The state has passed regulations in recent years to address that. But the case heard by the Michigan Supreme Court this week could roll back those regulations if the court rules in favor of 3M. The company argues that the state did not follow the rules for adopting drinking water regulations. Lower courts ruled against the state. 

William Dichtell is a chemist at Northwestern University who researches how to break down PFAS in energy efficient ways. He joined The Metro on Thursday to talk about his research and how microbes can help break down the forever chemicals.

Dichtell says he gets asked a lot how to avoid PFAS, but due to their prevalence in the environment, there is no way to prevent human exposure.

“We’re using PFAs in so many different contexts, and we have so much historical contamination,” he said. “This has to be solved at the societal level. This isn’t a matter of just changing the brand of toothpaste that you use or drinking a different kind of bottled water or something like that.”

MPRN reporter Rick Pluta contributed to this report. Use the media player above to listen to the full conversation with William Dichtell.

More headlines from The Metro on Nov. 14, 2024:

• Beginning in the 1950s, Mad magazine has been poking fun at  important figures in our politics, our movies, and our broader culture. It’s been done with a purpose to demonstrate that they are flawed like the rest of us. A new documentary about Mad by Pleasant Ridge resident Alan Bernstein makes its local debut at 7:30 p.m. Thursday at the Redford Theatre. Bernstein joined the show ahead of the screening to discuss his new film.
• The Detroit City Council have passed a new animal ordinance going into effect in January that outlines the type of livestock allowed in the city.  Animal owners will need to apply for a license and pay an annual fee to have chickens, ducks and bees in their backyard. Roosters are not allowed and wild animals remain prohibited. Jerry Hebron Jerry, executive director of the North End Christian Community Development Corporation, joined the show to talk about the impact the new ordinance will have on urban farming. 
• “Monopoly: Detroit edition” features iconic locations like the Ambassador Bridge, the Charles H. Wright Museum of African American History, the Detroit Princess boat and the Renaissance Center. Game maker Top Trumps USA has been creating special city editions of the classic board game for a decade. Tim Barney, of Top Trumps, joined The Metro to talk about the Detroit edition and why they chose to feature the Motor City.

Listen to The Metro weekdays from 11 a.m. to noon ET on 101.9 FM and streaming on-demand.

The Michigan Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday on a challenge by a chemical manufacturer to the state’s drinking water rules for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS.

PFAS are a family of chemicals used in products including clothing, cookware and firefighting foam. PFAS, which are linked to a number of health conditions, are very slow to break down and are often called “forever chemicals.”

The manufacturing company 3M argues the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy did not follow the required process for promulgating rules to deal with PFAS in drinking water. 

3M says the state failed to provide an estimated cost of complying with the regulations for cleaning up groundwater.

The state says 3M is arguing for a needlessly expansive interpretation of the rules. The state is hoping the justices will reverse lower courts when they issue a decision.

Michigan voters will decide who will serve on the next Michigan Supreme Court on Tuesday, Nov. 5. There are four candidates running to fill two open seats on the bench — one partial four-year term and one full eight-year term.

WDET is committed to bringing you accurate, up-to-date election results for the metro Detroit area. Results from uncontested races are not included.

Be sure to bookmark this page or tune in to WDET 101.9 FM for live updates on election results. Last updated: Nov. 6 at 11:38 a.m.

A challenge to the state’s rules on water contamination by a group of forever chemicals is on the Michigan Supreme Court’s November oral arguments docket.

The Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy’s rules are aimed at PFAS,  a family of chemicals used in clothing, cookware and firefighting foam. PFAS are often called “forever chemicals” because they’re so slow to break down. PFAS have been linked to a variety of conditions and health risks.

The manufacturing company 3M claims the state did not follow the law for promulgating regulations, which includes a requirement to provide an estimated cost of compliance. 3M says that should include the costs of cleaning up drinking water and groundwater. The state says it’s only required to provide an estimate for drinking water cleanup. Lower courts ruled against the state.

The PFAS case is one of a half dozen cases to be argued at the court’s Nov. 13 session. 

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. filed a last-ditch federal lawsuit Thursday in an effort to get his name off Michigan’s presidential ballot. That’s as local clerks are already finalizing ballots for printing.

Kennedy exhausted his appeals in Michigan courts before turning now to federal courts — even though the state’s legal deadline to get ballots to printers is passed. Angela Benander, a spokesperson for Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, told the Michigan Public Radio Network the filing will not change current plans.

“Clerks are currently in the process of printing ballots to ensure absentee ballots will be delivered to voters by the federal deadlines,” said Benander. She said those deadlines ensure absentee ballots are in the mail to overseas and military voters in time for them to be returned and counted.

The Michigan Supreme Court on Monday held Kennedy’s name would remain on the ballot, which settled the matter in state courts.

Kennedy has had mixed results in having his name stricken from ballots in states where he has already qualified. He suspended his campaign last month and endorsed former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee.

Michigan Secretary of State said Kennedy waited until it was too late to withdraw as the nominee of the Natural Law Party of Michigan. Kennedy sought and accepted the minor party nomination as a way to get on the Michigan ballot. Withdrawing now would leave the party without a presidential candidate.

But in the lawsuit filed Monday with the U.S. District Court for Michigan’s eastern district, Kennedy argued the state is violating his constitutional freedom of speech and freedom of association rights.

“Keeping Mr. Kennedy off the ballot will also cause no harm to the public,” said Kennedy’s filing. “Conversely, leaving Mr. Kennedy’s name will serve only to mislead voters, upend election and ballot integrity…”

In the filing, Kennedy also complained that he is being held to a different standard than President Joe Biden, who exited the presidential race on July 21 and cleared the way for Vice President Kamala Harris to be nominated.

But there is a critical distinction. Biden was in the race and the presumptive nominee prior to stepping aside. But he was never formally nominated and, thus, never accepted the nomination.

Harris was waiting in the wings when Biden withdrew his name from consideration following a disastrous debate performance against Trump. She was formally nominated by the Democratic National Convention on August 6th, which placed her on Michigan’s ballot.

The state will now have an opportunity to respond to Kennedy’s lawsuit and motion to remove his name. But the court does not have to accept the case or take any other action.

Supporters of increasing the state’s minimum wage and earned sick leave received a ruling from the Michigan Supreme Court on Wednesday that’s in their favor. This week on MichMash, host Cheyna Roth and Gongwer News Service’s Alethia Kasben sat down with Crain’s Detroit Business senior reporter Dave Eggert to discuss the ramifications of the ruling on the state’s businesses. 

Subscribe to MichMash on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, NPR.org or wherever you get your podcasts.

In this episode:

• The origins of the adopt and amend legislative tactic
• The future of minimum wages in Michigan
• Michigan businesses’ reaction to the increase in minimum wage and earned sick leave

The Michigan Legislature’s controversial “adopt and amend” tactic refers to the legislature adopting a ballot measure before allowing it to go to voters and then amending it significantly during the legislative session.

The Michigan Supreme Court’s 4-3 ruling on Wednesday found that the legislative tactic — used by the Legislature in 2018 to gut a voter-approved ballot initiative to increase the state’s minimum wage — was “unconstitutional” because it circumvented the petition initiative process.

“It was very controversial in the moment. The legislature at the time was controlled by Republicans,” Eggert said. “Ballot initiatives generally are thought to generate extra turnout, particularly on those issues, probably for Democrats; for Republicans and business groups, they feel like the laws were unwieldy.”

The ruling, which will allow for an increase to the state’s minimum wage and tipped minimum wage — as well as an expansion of the state’s earned sick time laws — will have a big impact on local businesses.

Some critics of those changes suggest exemptions for small businesses.

“Do they go and try to go back to exempting all businesses with 50 or fewer employees? That could be a pretty tough lift in the Democratic-led legislature” Eggers said.

The new minimum wage law will take effect in February 2025. 

More from WDET:

• How Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling on minimum wage, sick leave will affect workers and businesses
• Michigan Supreme Court sets stage for minimum wage boost
• Karamo forcibly removed from Michigan GOP convention; party chooses Fink, O’Grady for state Supreme Court

More from Gongwer:

• Impossible Or Inevitable? Adopt-And-Amend Fallout Continues