Finally, Appellees would be remiss if they did not point out that the real reason for the Appellants’ “no holds barred” approach to this litigation is that no one is allowed to challenge the Governor’s complete and total authority. In fact, when discussing the irreparable harm that Appellants will suffer if the stay is not immediately issued, Appellants’ concern for the safety of Michiganders working out at gyms is an afterthought at best. Appellants are driven by something else entirely. As the Governor stated in a press conference a mere 30 minutes after the conclusion of oral argument on Appellee’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, “‘[W]E STILL SEE ATTEMPTS TO TAKE AWAY MY AUTHORITY to take these actions, which made it all possible in the first place. . . . I want to be very clear: ANY ATTEMPT TO STRIP AWAY THE POWERS OF THE GOVERNOR DURING THIS CRISIS IS IRRESPONSIBLE, DANGEROUS AND FOOLISH.’”3 (emphasis added)
Does Executive Ord 2020-110 prohibit persons from engaging in outdoor activities that are protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution?
A: No. Persons may engage in expressive activities protected by the First Amendment within the State of Michigan, but must adhere to social distancing measures recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including remaining at least six feet from people from outside the person’s household.
No comments:
Post a Comment