Judicial Declaration: The county commission has statutory duty to “approve” or “disapprove” of the mask mandate
The health department’s authority is limited by statute, including when issuing regulations.
The county commission has a mandatory duty to exercise oversight over health department regulations.
The health department’s mandate is procedurally invalid because they did not obtain approval from the county commission.
Mandamus is properly employed “to require a body or an officer charged with a duty to take action in the matter.”
The lawsuit requests the court to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the county commission to comply with its statutory duty and vote to either “approve” or “disapprove” the mask mandate as required by the plain language of MCL333.2441.
Judicial Declaration: MCL 333.2451 does not authorize the mask mandate
Any determination that an “imminent danger” exists must be set forth in the order to which it relates, according to MCL 333.2441.
The mask mandate does not contain any determination or factual findings to support a determination of imminent danger.
Since the health department failed to trigger authority under MCL 333.2451, the mandate is invalid and unenforceable.
Judicial Declaration: MCL 333.2453 does not authorize the mask mandate
The mask mandate does not prohibit the gathering of people for any purpose, referred to in MCL 333.2453(1).
The health department made no findings that the mask mandate was necessary to “ensure” or was in any way related to the “continuation of essential public health services and the enforcement of health laws.”
To the extent the mask order relies on MCL 333.2453, the mandate is invalid and unenforceable.
Judicial Declaration: Mich Admin Code R 325.175(4) does not authorize the mask mandate
While Rule 325.175(4) allows the health department to “exclude” individuals with communicable diseases from attending school programs, it does not allow for a preemptive, blanket mask mandate.