By Liz Nass
Gongwer News Service
A case involving workers’ compensation eligibility for persons in the United States illegally came before the Michigan Supreme Court on Wednesday.
The Michigan Immigration Rights Center argued against sovereign immunity for Gov. Gretchen Whitmer while the Department of Attorney General backed a timeliness statute against the plaintiffs in oral arguments in front of the Michigan Supreme Court on Wednesday.
MIRC v. Whitmer, filed in 2021, argues that Whitmer enforcing a policy from the Supreme Court in 2003, Sanchez v. Eagle Alloy, Inc., to exclude workers without legal permission to be in the United States from legal recourse for worker’s compensation is unconstitutional and contradicts modern U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
MIRC has assisted these workers with their workers’ compensation claims, leading to continued harm to the center, according to David Muraskin, managing director for litigation at FarmSTAND, which represents MIRC.
Muraskin shaped his argument around the idea that Whitmer does not have sweeping immunity like the state does, including a timeliness statute Whitmer’s attorneys used in the Court of Appeals to reverse the lower court’s ruling in favor of MIRC.
This claims that any policy enacted needs to be litigated within the first year of the policy’s tenure. Muraskin was critical of this argument in a press conference on Monday, claiming it closes the case on “the face that she got away with it for a year.”
Muraskin also made the distinction that Whitmer is not the state, but an officer of the state who can be tried on policy. Any claims to the contrary, Muraskin dismissed as political “gamesmanship” that the court needed to address.
“The governor has been playing a game throughout this case,” Muraskin said.
The governor still is required to follow the law under sovereign immunity, Muraskin said.
Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh asked about the distinction that although Whitmer is an individual officer, the relief MIRC is seeking would involve an agency, which could be considered the state. Muraskin said Whitmer is also responsible for the agencies, enforcing her views against her subordinates, and that an officer acting unlawfully “cannot be the state.”
Muraskin compared this enforcement of policy to the governor attempting to enforce anti-sodomy laws from a 1980s Supreme Court decision, ignoring a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from more than 20 years ago striking down those laws.
“Can you ever enforce your rights? So, a person who suffered under Michigan’s anti-sodomy laws for a year because they were scared to come forward or they couldn’t find a lawyer,” Muraskin said. “The governor’s view (is) she can then enforce those laws against that person indefinitely.”
The costs of working with the immigrants in question on their workers’ compensation claims was a cost that MIRC never intended to absorb, placing harm every time they are diverted to their office, Muraskin said.
Assistant Attorney General Gallant Fish focused his argument on the timeliness aspect, saying that MIRC should have brought their case either in 2003, or in 2017, when MIRC began receiving calls in relation to the decision, or in 2019 when MIRC had to hire additional staff, but the 2021 claim does not fall within the timeliness statute.
Fish argued that MIRC does not prove “an ongoing series of wrongs” to file suit now.
Justice Elizabeth Welch asked how plaintiffs should be expected to lock in on the unconstitutionality of something on the first harm when the Supreme Court has ruled on issues much farther out than even three years.
Fish said they don’t disagree with ongoing wrongs, not giving rise to an independent cause of action, just that MIRC has not alleged continuous action.
“There might be wrongs in the general sense that MIRC has alleged, if Sanchez is wrongly decided, there might be denial of benefits under Sanchez,” Fish said. “It would be, in some sense, a wrong. But it’s not a wrong committed against MIRC.”
Fish also argued that a claim against a state officer in an official capacity is a claim against the state of Michigan.
Other arguments from Muraskin included that he believes the state would want MIRC to file a case against the Sanchez case, but it’s just not the case they filed because they believe Whitmer is “misreading Sanchez” and continuing to enforce it that way.
Muraskin also said there are emails from her office saying this is their policy.
“There’s nothing novel about this case,” Muraskin said. “When government officials act unconstitutionally, they can be held accountable. This is a case in which entity is receiving costs, whether the governor wants to contest whether those costs are properly caused by its policy.”
Whitmer’s office did not comment due to pending litigation.
Gongwer News Service
A case involving workers’ compensation eligibility for persons in the United States illegally came before the Michigan Supreme Court on Wednesday.
The Michigan Immigration Rights Center argued against sovereign immunity for Gov. Gretchen Whitmer while the Department of Attorney General backed a timeliness statute against the plaintiffs in oral arguments in front of the Michigan Supreme Court on Wednesday.
MIRC v. Whitmer, filed in 2021, argues that Whitmer enforcing a policy from the Supreme Court in 2003, Sanchez v. Eagle Alloy, Inc., to exclude workers without legal permission to be in the United States from legal recourse for worker’s compensation is unconstitutional and contradicts modern U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
MIRC has assisted these workers with their workers’ compensation claims, leading to continued harm to the center, according to David Muraskin, managing director for litigation at FarmSTAND, which represents MIRC.
Muraskin shaped his argument around the idea that Whitmer does not have sweeping immunity like the state does, including a timeliness statute Whitmer’s attorneys used in the Court of Appeals to reverse the lower court’s ruling in favor of MIRC.
This claims that any policy enacted needs to be litigated within the first year of the policy’s tenure. Muraskin was critical of this argument in a press conference on Monday, claiming it closes the case on “the face that she got away with it for a year.”
Muraskin also made the distinction that Whitmer is not the state, but an officer of the state who can be tried on policy. Any claims to the contrary, Muraskin dismissed as political “gamesmanship” that the court needed to address.
“The governor has been playing a game throughout this case,” Muraskin said.
The governor still is required to follow the law under sovereign immunity, Muraskin said.
Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh asked about the distinction that although Whitmer is an individual officer, the relief MIRC is seeking would involve an agency, which could be considered the state. Muraskin said Whitmer is also responsible for the agencies, enforcing her views against her subordinates, and that an officer acting unlawfully “cannot be the state.”
Muraskin compared this enforcement of policy to the governor attempting to enforce anti-sodomy laws from a 1980s Supreme Court decision, ignoring a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from more than 20 years ago striking down those laws.
“Can you ever enforce your rights? So, a person who suffered under Michigan’s anti-sodomy laws for a year because they were scared to come forward or they couldn’t find a lawyer,” Muraskin said. “The governor’s view (is) she can then enforce those laws against that person indefinitely.”
The costs of working with the immigrants in question on their workers’ compensation claims was a cost that MIRC never intended to absorb, placing harm every time they are diverted to their office, Muraskin said.
Assistant Attorney General Gallant Fish focused his argument on the timeliness aspect, saying that MIRC should have brought their case either in 2003, or in 2017, when MIRC began receiving calls in relation to the decision, or in 2019 when MIRC had to hire additional staff, but the 2021 claim does not fall within the timeliness statute.
Fish argued that MIRC does not prove “an ongoing series of wrongs” to file suit now.
Justice Elizabeth Welch asked how plaintiffs should be expected to lock in on the unconstitutionality of something on the first harm when the Supreme Court has ruled on issues much farther out than even three years.
Fish said they don’t disagree with ongoing wrongs, not giving rise to an independent cause of action, just that MIRC has not alleged continuous action.
“There might be wrongs in the general sense that MIRC has alleged, if Sanchez is wrongly decided, there might be denial of benefits under Sanchez,” Fish said. “It would be, in some sense, a wrong. But it’s not a wrong committed against MIRC.”
Fish also argued that a claim against a state officer in an official capacity is a claim against the state of Michigan.
Other arguments from Muraskin included that he believes the state would want MIRC to file a case against the Sanchez case, but it’s just not the case they filed because they believe Whitmer is “misreading Sanchez” and continuing to enforce it that way.
Muraskin also said there are emails from her office saying this is their policy.
“There’s nothing novel about this case,” Muraskin said. “When government officials act unconstitutionally, they can be held accountable. This is a case in which entity is receiving costs, whether the governor wants to contest whether those costs are properly caused by its policy.”
Whitmer’s office did not comment due to pending litigation.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
