Michigan restaurants' only hope of staying in business is providing takeout for their customers, as indoor dining service is closed until at least Dec. 20. | Norma Mortenson/Pexels
Michigan restaurants' only hope of staying in business is providing takeout for their customers, as indoor dining service is closed until at least Dec. 20. | Norma Mortenson/Pexels
As COVID-19 continues to spread quickly across the U.S., the pandemic and its lockdowns continue to place economic strain on American families, small businesses and restaurants.
Restaurants and bars have been significantly impacted by the coronavirus, specifically the loss of business resulting from statewide lockdowns and health mandates. In the state of Michigan, many restaurant and bars have turned to legal strategies to attempt to reopen their indoor dining services. Court cases continue trying to determine the balance between public safety and economic health for businesses, and the Michigan Supreme Court may soon hear cases about the recent restrictions instituted in the state.
Regarding COVID-19, the figures are concerning; the state has had over 410,000 cases, with over 10,000 deaths, according to Michigan.gov. Cases are continuing to rise, as many people are not as diligent in following health guidelines as they were earlier in the pandemic. This, combined with the winter months keeping many indoors, has caused case numbers to skyrocket again in a third wave heading into December.
Earlier in the fall, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's state-of-emergency executive powers were ruled unconstitutional, specifically the ability to issue orders to close businesses in response to the pandemic.
The most recent orders facing legal challenges by the Michigan Restaurant and Lodging Association are part of an order issued by the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services Director Robert Gordon, reports Bridge Michigan. The orders place renewed limitations on indoor crowds, including schools, movie theaters and retail businesses, whose capacity was again reduced from 50 percent to 30 percent.
Those pushing for the repeal of Gordon’s orders argue that the orders violate the state’s constitution and claim that they were an "outsourcing" of executive authority from Whitmer, as a method to bypass the court ruling. Gordon argues that his orders are within his purview and that the mandate "rests on the firm legal authority" of precedent set during the 1918 Influenza Pandemic.
U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney set a preliminary hearing date for Dec. 17, in which he may ask the Michigan Supreme Court for a hearing on the matter. While the hearing may provide answers for these particular grievances, the legal challenges -- as well as the pandemic -- are far from over.
Alerts Sign-up