LANSING — The Michigan Supreme Court is currently deliberating whether gyms and restaurants that were forced to close or limit operations due to COVID-19 restrictions are entitled to seek compensation from the state. The court is examining two cases that raise issues related to the takings clauses of the federal and state constitutions. These clauses prohibit the government from seizing private property or limiting its use for a public purpose without providing just compensation. Lawyers representing the affected businesses argued that the lawsuits should be allowed to proceed to the discovery stage, while the Court of Appeals had previously dismissed them.
Attorney Philip Ellison, representing The Gym 24/7 Fitness LLC in Alma, argued that the state effectively took gyms and fitness centers for six months to combat COVID-19. He emphasized that the government should be responsible for compensating businesses that suffered losses as a result. Justin Majewski, the lawyer for three businesses in Macomb County, echoed Ellison’s argument, stating that the government should pay if it decides to impose restrictions that adversely impact businesses.
On the other hand, Solicitor General Ann Sherman, arguing for the state, contended that when the government acts out of necessity to protect public health, it does not constitute a taking. Sherman claimed that nearly every court nationwide has rejected the notion of a taking in the context of COVID-19, and Michigan should not deviate from this consensus.
During the hearing, some justices expressed openness to the plaintiffs’ arguments. Justice David Viviano suggested that not enough was known about the economic impact on the businesses, while Justice Richard Bernstein highlighted the specific use of gyms and questioned alternative uses. Citing takings law, Justice Elizabeth Welch noted that as long as a property has another use, it is generally not considered a taking. However, Majewski countered by emphasizing the unique challenges faced by small, family-owned restaurants that were not equipped for a sudden shift to carryout service.
While the lawyers and justices presented divergent views, the Supreme Court will ultimately decide whether the businesses are entitled to compensation. The outcome of these cases may have broader implications for businesses affected by COVID-19 restrictions, both in Michigan and across the country.
In conclusion, the Michigan Supreme Court is currently deliberating whether gyms and restaurants that were impacted by COVID-19 restrictions are entitled to seek compensation from the state. The court’s decision could provide clarity on the issue of takings clauses and potentially have wider implications for similar cases nationwide.
