950 N.W.2d 446
Mich. Ct. App.2019Background
- Plaintiffs (Bauserman, Williams, Broe) sued the Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency (UIA), alleging due-process violations arising from the Agency’s adoption and use of the MIDAS fraud-detection system and related policies, and sought damages.
- Michigan Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to consider whether plaintiffs raised cognizable constitutional tort claims.
- The Court of Appeals majority concluded plaintiffs pleaded a cognizable Michigan-constitutional due-process claim and that damages may be recovered under a judicially inferred remedy.
- Judge Michael F. Gadola concurred in the result but wrote separately urging the Michigan Supreme Court to revisit Smith v. Dep’t of Public Health, criticizing Smith’s fractured precedent and the wisdom of courts inferring damages remedies.
- Gadola emphasized separation-of-powers concerns, noted the U.S. Supreme Court’s retreat from Bivens/Davis/Carlson (culminating in Ziglar), and questioned whether courts should create damages remedies absent legislative action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cognizable constitutional tort under Michigan Constitution for due-process violations | Bauserman: UIA policies deprived procedural due process; state constitutional claim is cognizable | UIA: Plaintiffs failed to plead a cognizable constitutional tort | Plaintiffs pleaded a cognizable claim (Court applies Smith/Mays) |
| Availability of judicially-inferred damages remedy against state agency | Plaintiffs: monetary relief is available for constitutional violations | UIA: Judiciary lacks power to infer damages; sovereign immunity/ separation-of-powers bars remedy | Majority: damages may be awarded under Smith balancing; concurrence urges Supreme Court to revisit this rule |
| Whether harms stemmed from a state policy or custom | Plaintiffs: MIDAS adoption and Agency practices caused the harms | UIA: (implicit) actions not attributable to an actionable custom/policy | Court found harms arose from Agency policy/custom |
| Validity and scope of Smith balancing test for implying damages (separation-of-powers concern) | Plaintiffs rely on Smith/Mays to justify implied remedy | UIA and concurrence: Smith is fractured; courts should defer to legislature; federal precedent counsels caution | Court applied Smith/Mays; concurrence calls for Michigan Supreme Court review given Bivens-era retrenchment |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Dep’t of Public Health, 428 Mich. 540 (1987) (recognized existence of constitutional tort under Michigan Constitution and articulated multifactor balancing for damages)
- Mays v. Governor, 323 Mich. App. 1 (2018) (applies Smith framework to state constitutional tort claims)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognized implied federal damages remedy for constitutional violations)
- Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979) (extended Bivens relief in certain contexts)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980) (further extension of Bivens-style relief)
- Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296 (1983) (curtailed scope of Bivens)
- Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367 (1983) (declined to imply damages remedy; urged deference to Congress)
- Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 (1988) (contemplated public-interest and policy considerations when recognizing remedies)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017) (emphasized separation-of-powers and limited extension of Bivens remedies)