An East Lansing gym closed for COVID-19 in May 2020 | Susan J. Demas
Lawsuits from students at Michigan universities and gyms and owners of restaurants and catering businesses all seeking compensation for the impacts of mandated shutdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic were thrown out last week by the Michigan Supreme Court.
Michigan confirmed its first cases of COVID-19 on March 10, 2020, and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer immediately issued a state of emergency. Many students had their last day of in-person classes for at least the remainder of the school year.
The lawsuit raised by students at Lake Superior State University, Central Michigan University and Eastern Michigan University asserted that due to the disruption in education, students should receive partial reimbursement for costs like tuition, room and board and other related costs for attendance.
Students argued that they signed up for classes and housing under the pretense of an in-person learning environment and the schools deprived them of a complete learning experience in breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
In 2022, the Court of Appeals rejected the lawsuit, saying in its opinion that the universities didn’t breach any agreement to provide live in-person instruction because no such contract or promise existed. The court found that “the University defendants’ housing contracts addressed the possibility of circumstances affecting the health and welfare of students” and “the University defendants’ tuition contracts specifically addressed student payment obligations when registering for courses”.
The state Supreme Court on Friday declined to hear appeals of the consolidated cases.
But in a dissenting opinion, GOP-nominated Justice David Viviano said the courts have failed to recognize “an implied contract based on the registration materials, historical practice, and other relevant evidence” on how the classes will be presented.
A Lansing restaurant closed in March 2020 | Susan J. Demas
The lawsuit brought by a Gratiot County gym sought just compensation for having to close for six months under Whitmer’s executive orders during the COVID-19 pandemic. Federal and state law protect citizens and businesses from having private property taken without just compensation.
However, the Court of Appeals opinion notes that there is no allegation or evidence that the State physically acquired any of the gym’s private property and “the Gym was not deprived of all economically productive or beneficial use of its property as a result of the Governor’s EOs.”
The courts are missing out on an opportunity to define portions of the law that have gone untested, Justice Viviano wrote in a dissenting argument after the state Supreme Court declined to hear appeals Friday.
Viviano noted that Whitmer’s executive orders to slow the spread of COVID-19 impacted nearly every part of Michiganders’ lives and some orders were found to be unconstitutional.
“But in their aftermath, important questions remained. This case raises the issue of whether the Governor’s temporary closure of in-person fitness businesses during the start of the pandemic constituted a regulatory taking,” Viviano said. “Can the temporary impairment of business operations be a categorical taking if there are no reasonable alternative uses of the business property during the period in which its intended and normal use is prohibited?”
Viviano added that even if the gym space and assets couldn’t be repurposed, Michigan’s highest court now won’t argue if still the prohibitions on operation constituted a taking by the government.
The decision on the gym was used to justify the Court of Appeals rejection of a lawsuit from restaurant owners and other food service groups. The Michigan Supreme Court did not offer up much explanation of its refusal to hear the food service lawsuit or any of the other COVID-related lawsuits.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX