Pontiac Times

U.S. District Judge William Stickman recently ruled that some of Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf’s COVID-19 executive orders are unconstitutional, leaving some to wonder what the precedent could mean for Michigan and the rest of the country.

Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Michael Warren, whom Frank Beckmann introduced on WJR's "The Frank Beckmann Show" as a Constitutional scholar, spoke with the radio host on what he takes from the ruling.

Warren said that Stickman included an interesting caveat, stating that when actions are taken for what are thought to be noble reasons, the nation should be even more vigilant about whether those actions violate the Constitution.

"So he begins acknowledging that the governor here was trying to do something very important and good, which is to protect public health in connection with this crisis,” Warren told Beckmann.

But Stickman went on to state that the presence of good intentions does not remove the obligation of government to follow the Constitution, Warren said. In fact, it’s likely that the Constitution is in greatest danger of violation when people are acting with good intent.

Stickman held that, once those violations of the Constitution have occurred, the reason they were permitted may pass, but the violations and their impacts often remain, Warren said.

"And that’s so important, I think we need to remember. And not just now, in this pandemic, but in connection with the War on Terror and other civil emergencies that may arise,” Warren told Beckmann.

Warren said that Stickman held in his written opinion that a part of what informed the drafting of the Constitution was the concern over too much power being centralized in the hands of a single person.

"That’s why we have a Constitution that’s written; that’s why we have a legislative branch, an executive branch and a judicial branch; that’s why there’s checks and balances between the branches; that’s why we have elections,” Warren told Beckmann.

"There’s a whole Constitutional structure to protect liberty, and you just don’t write it all away,” Warren said on the radio program.

But while some of the same issues are raised in the lawsuit currently before the Michigan Supreme Court, the arguments being heard there begin with a disagreement over whether Gov. Gretchen Whitmer can claim emergency powers under a 1945 law to respond to a pandemic, or whether she would need to claim powers under a more limited 1976 law.

"It very different than the Pennsylvania case, which is all about the federal Constitution,” he told Beckmann.

In Pennsylvania, the plaintiffs argued that restrictions on gatherings were a violation of the First Amendment. Particularly as commercial activities were getting better protections than “core First Amendment activities," according to Warren.

"So things like fundraisers and political gatherings were not permitted, but you could go to the store,” Warren used as an example.