You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that:
it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.
- Rahm Emanuel
Crisis, emergency - when it comes to government abusing power, there's no difference between the two. It's no wonder Michigan government managed to slide through COVID with emergency power laws intact.
Unchecked state authority persists five years after COVID, panel says
Mackinac Center panel urges state to plan for next pandemic
Five years after the COVID-19 pandemic began, 30 laws give various government officials unregulated emergency powers, an expert told participants at a May 28 event held by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
The Michigan Supreme Court in 2020 declared that Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s use of emergency powers was unconstitutional. The court ruled that the 1945 Emergency Powers of the Governor Act was unconstitutional.
But 30 emergency powers laws are still on the books, according to Michael Van Beek, the Mackinac Center’s director of research. Three of those, he said, need to be addressed immediately: the Emergency Management Act of 1976, the Emergency Rules in the Administrative Procedures Act of 1969, and the Public Health Code Act 368 of 1978.
Van Beek has written three reports on emergency power laws in Michigan, including one that the Michigan Supreme Court cited.
These state statutes authorize emergency authority for a state official to act unilaterally.
“One of the things I’m trying to do is fix our emergency power laws now so that when the next emergency hits, we have our house in order and we can respond to the pandemic in a much more organized and logical way,” Van Beek said.
The epidemic power provisions of the public health code are extraordinarily broad and could be used if the director determines that the control of an epidemic is necessary to protect public health.
“When all these terms are undefined, whoever is in charge of the state health department gets to determine what these things mean,” Van Beek added.
“We need a plan that maps out exactly what health officials can and what they cannot do for a pandemic response,” Van Beek said. “All of these statutes need to have limits put into them about how long they can last, what actions specifically can be take, and who can take them.”
A separation of powers is essential in maintaining our liberties, said Daniel Dew, the director of legal policy at the Pacific Legal Foundation.
“Without the constitutional separation of powers, the Bill of Rights is not worth the paper it’s written on,” Dew said. “It doesn't matter when all the power is consumed by one person or one group, and we saw that during the pandemic.”
The plan should gather input from the Legislature, public health experts, and local health officials. This would reduce the burden on the governor to act alone and help preserve checks and balances, Dew said.
Jarrett Skorup, the Mackinac Center’s director of Marketing and Communications, concluded the event by calling on all three branches of government to act.
“The courts need to rein in and get back to our constitutional mandate situation, the legislature needs to bring back some of their power, and we need some principled thinking governors willing to sign these bills,” Skorup said.
Taylor Regester is the Frank Beckmann Center for Journalism intern at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
Once begun, state abuse goes on and on. CapCon featured two egregious cases earlier this year.
Omitted for length here, photo and committee hearing video are well worth clicking the publisher's link.
Owosso barber still battling $9K in fines from Whitmer lockdown
77-year-old was one of six hairdressers state fined for cutting hair in 2020
By Jamie A. Hope | April 28, 2025Michigan residents and small business owners targeted by the Whitmer administration got a long-delayed chance to speak on April 23 as the Republican-controlled state House held its first hearings on government overreach during the COVID lockdowns.
Two business owners and a lawyer described how they were targeted by Attorney General Dana Nessel, the Whitmer administration, and local government at the House's Weaponization of State Government hearing.
Gov. Whitmer declared barbers and hairdressers “nonessential” in 2020. Six barbers and hairdressers defied the lockdown orders and were criminally charged for cutting hair at the Michigan Capitol on May 20, 2020.
Five years later, Karl Manke, an Owosso barber, is awaiting a ruling in the Shiawassee County Circuit Court to drop the fines, he said in the subcommittee hearing. During the lockdown period, state government entities temporarily suspended his barbershop and occupational license when he reopened his shop, according to Kallman Legal.
The 77-year-old racked up $9,000 in fines, but Manke kept working to pay bills. He believed Whitmer’s executive orders violated his rights, and the Michigan Supreme Court ultimately agreed in October 2020.
Manke's fines included $1,500 for having hair and neck strips on his barbershop floor and having a comb in his pocket during a televised media interview. He was also fined $6,000 for cutting hair without a license on the steps of the Michigan Capitol during Operation Haircut, a protest of Whitmer’s orders in May 2020. Though his license was later reinstated, the state refused to drop the fines.
When the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in September 2020 that Whitmer’s orders were unconstitutional, the charges against Manke were dropped.
Manke told the subcommittee he was never notified about the loss of his license.
Rep. Angela Rigas, R-Alto, chair of the Weaponization of State Government subcommittee and a hairstylist for 25 years, said the $1,500 fine for having a comb in a pocket was unusual.
Subcommittee member Laurie Pohutsky, D-Livonia, compared Manke to Michiganders who are still in prison for marijuana violations that occurred before cannabis became legal in Michigan.
Whitmer tapped emergency orders through the state health department after reaching the limit of her executive-order powers.
Holland restaurant owner Marlena Pavlos-Hackney testified about Attorney General Dana Nessel's determined effort to arrest her before she could appear on Tucker Carlson's Fox News show to speak about reopening her business against pandemic orders.
Emails obtained by Michigan Capitol Confidential in 2021 revealed that Nessel explicitly stated her desire to have Hackney arrested before she could go on Carlson's show. Hackney's testimony and present situation will be covered more fully in an upcoming CapCon story.
Marlena Hackney's case also continues to drag on and on. Not exactly the Founders' concept of an efficient court system!
Excellent details from MichCapCon; video omitted for length.
Two Democratic lawmakers agree: AG Nessel sicced government on business owners during pandemic
Tucker Carlson blasts Michigan’s attorney general over her 2021 arrest of a business owner
A restaurant owner who was arrested and jailed for operating her Holland restaurant during the COVID pandemic asked the Legislature to rein in the power of unelected bureaucrats during testimony April 23 at a Weaponization of State Government subcommittee hearing.
Marlena Pavlos-Hackney, a Holland restaurant owner, testified to the committee that she was arrested March 19, 2021, for defying Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s COVID-19 orders.
The arrest came after the Michigan Supreme Court had already declared Whitmer’s orders unconstitutional in October 2020.
Nessel originally threatened Hackney with imprisonment on March 4, 2021.
But it was not until Nessel learned that Hackney was scheduled to appear on the Tucker Carlson Show that she ordered the arrest, according to emails Michigan Capitol Confidential obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request in June 2021.
“Do we know her whereabouts? We should just have her picked up before she goes on. This is outrageous,” said Nessel in a March 12, 2021, email about Hackney appearing on Carlson’s show.
Nessel did not respond to a request for comment.
But Carlson does not mince words after Hackney's testimony.
“Marlena is one of the toughest, most principled people in the state of Michigan,” Carlson told CapCon in a text message. “It’s not surprising a monster like Dana Nessel would try to take her out.”
Hackney fled Communism in Poland as a teenager. She originally complied with the shutdown order. When Whitmer allowed businesses to reopen, the governor mandated social distancing and mask requirements, which the restaurant owner defied. Hackney needed to pay bills.
After the Michigan Supreme Court ruled Whitmer’s edicts unconstitutional in October 2020, Nessel and the agriculture department pursued Hackney through government agencies.
On March 4, Nessel petitioned a court to force the restaurant to close for violating COVID rules.
Allegan County law enforcement and a county judge said they would not arrest Hackney or shut her down. But Judge Wanda Stokes, who presided in Ingham County more than 100 miles away, ordered Hackney’s Bistro closed until she complied, also imposing a $7,500 fine and issuing a bench warrant for her arrest. The order violated the Ingham County court’s arrest guidelines during COVID.
Hackney said she was cavity-searched and sent in shackles and chains to stand before Judge Rosemarie Aquilina.
The Bistro owner was originally sentenced to 93 days in jail. The $7,500 fine was doubled to $15,000. Hackney appealed the fine, and the Court of Appeals agreed.
Hackney attorney Helen Brinkman supported the claim that Hackney was targeted by showing pictures of Whitmer, in May of the same year, at a group gathering at The Landshark, in violation of her own rules. The Landshark was never fined, Brinkman pointed out at the hearing, nor did its owner go to jail.
So far, Hackney said she has paid $70,000 in legal fees.
Government shouldn’t target residents, said Rep. Laurie Pohutsky, a Democrat from Livonia.
“Admittedly, not the way government should be operating,” she said.
Rep. Dylan Wegela, a Garden City Democrat, also chastised Nessel. “It is absolutely appalling, and our government shouldn’t be persecuting anybody on behalf of their First Amendment rights or ignoring their Fifth Amendment rights to due process,” Wegela said.
At long last, Marlena Hackney's hearing before the Michigan Court of Appeals took place on September 5. The judge's names will be familiar to regular voters from past ballots.
Marlena's case is first on the docket, lasting until minute 47 on the MCOA video.
Interestingly, the second case is also health-related, an abortion question from Sault Ste. Marie. Correction: the state is charging the mother with murdering a newborn and abandoning her in a park. The defense is obfuscating matters with talk of abortion.
I'll number the cases in order of hearing. (No connection to actual docket numbers assigned by the court.)
At 1 hour 35 min, Case #3 features a bedsore lawsuit against Hurley Medical Center. The hospital's lawyer is emphasizing that driving 155 MPH (a criminal act) caused the initial injury.
Case #6 contests guardianship for a sharp 88-year-old with no family. Starts out technical and boring, but becomes very relevant to healthcare. (Begins at 2 hr, 37 min)
Case #7 is a child abuse/ parental rights case defended by Dave Kallman, familiar to many conservatives and homeschoolers. (Begins hr 3 min 24)
Sponsors
Friends of MHF
Kirsten DeVries
Tom & Karen Nunheimer
Steve Ahonen
Ron & Faith Bosserman
Marlin & Kathy Klumpp
Sign Up for MHF Insights to keep up on the latest in Michigan Health Policy
