873 N.W.2d 842
Mich. Ct. App.2015Background
- Michigan DNR issued Invasive Species Order Amendment No. 1 (ISO) listing Russian wild boar (Sus scrofa) and hybrids as prohibited invasive species, excluding Sus domestica involved in domestic hog production.
- Plaintiffs (ranchers/owners of penned Russian boar used for hunting or pets) challenged the ISO arguing their animals are domestic/hybrids, the ISO is vague, and it violates equal protection and due process.
- DNR issued (then rescinded) a declaratory ruling specifying morphological/behavioral characteristics to identify Sus scrofa; plaintiffs argued those characteristics overlap with domestic pigs and are scientifically unreliable.
- Circuit court held the ISO was not unconstitutionally vague but found equal protection and due process violations as to plaintiffs and enjoined enforcement against them.
- DNR appealed; plaintiffs cross-appealed the vagueness ruling. On appeal the court narrowed review to the ISO (declaratory ruling rescinded) and applied rational-basis review to the classification.
- Appellate court reversed the circuit court on equal protection and due process, held ISO is not void for vagueness, and dissolved the injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal Protection — classification of pigs | ISO irrationally and arbitrarily singles out plaintiffs’ penned boar though genetically related to farm pigs | ISO reasonably distinguishes Sus scrofa (environmental threat) from Sus domestica; classification rationally furthers environmental protection | Rejected plaintiffs; ISO survives rational-basis review |
| Substantive Due Process — relation to legitimate purpose | ISO lacks standards and sweeps so broadly it can ban any pig, including non-threatening penned animals | ISO rationally relates to legitimate environmental and public-health objectives by targeting species known to escape and cause damage | Rejected plaintiffs; ISO is neither arbitrary nor capricious |
| Void for Vagueness — fair notice to owners | Declaratory ruling and ISO create uncertainty; owners cannot tell which pigs are prohibited | ISO’s species-based language provides adequate notice; plaintiffs admit owning Sus scrofa-type animals | Rejected plaintiffs’ vagueness as applied; ISO provides fair notice |
| Injunction — prohibition on dispossession/enforcement | Plaintiffs sought injunction against dispossession as unconstitutional taking under vague/invalid order | DNR sought dissolution of injunction because ISO is constitutional | Injunction dissolved after appellate court upheld ISO |
Key Cases Cited
- West v. General Motors Corp., 469 Mich. 177 (standard of review for summary disposition)
- Bonner v. City of Brighton, 495 Mich. 209 (substantive due process standards)
- Phillips v. Mirac, Inc., 470 Mich. 415 (deference under rational-basis review)
- Crego v. Coleman, 463 Mich. 248 (upholding agency action if supported by any reasonably assumed facts)
- People v. Idziak, 484 Mich. 549 (presumption of constitutionality for challenged statutes/rules)
- FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (rational-basis: any reasonably conceivable state of facts)
- Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (rational-basis tolerates imperfect classifications)
- Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (void-for-vagueness principles)