MICHIGAN COALITION OF STATE EMPLOYEE UNIONS v CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Docket No. 115579
Supreme Court of Michigan
Decided July 27, 2001
465 MICH 212
Argued April 4, 2001 (Calendar No. 6).
In an opinion by Justice TAYLOR, joined by Chief Justice CORRIGAN, and Justices YOUNG and MARKMAN, the Supreme Court held:
A particularized showing of irreparable harm is required as one condition of obtaining a preliminary injunction against an alleged violation of
Nothing in
Reversed in part and remanded.
Justice CAVANAGH, joined by Justices WEAVER and KELLY, dissenting, stated that
The harm resulting in an
Sachs, Waldman, P.C. (by Mary Ellen Gurewitz and Marshall Widick), for Michigan Coalition of State Employee Unions, and William A. Wertheimer, Jr., and Georgi-Ann Bargamian, for UAW and Lynda Taylor Lewis.
Jennifer M. Granholm, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, and Susan Przekop-Shaw and Laura A. Cook, Assistant Attorneys General, for the defendant-appellant.
TAYLOR, J. This case presents the question whether a party alleging a violation of
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This case arises from the adoption by defendant Civil Service Commission on May 8, 1997, of amended Civil Service Rule 4-6, with a stated effective date of June 1, 1997. While the details of this rule are not important to our analysis, the rule generally governs circumstances in which state agencies subject to civil service regulation are allowed to contract and pay for personal services from persons who are not state civil service employees and procedures to be followed in that regard. The rule contains two provisions that have been alleged by plaintiffs to be violative of
In July 1998, the Court of Appeals granted defendant‘s application for leave to appeal from the issuance of the preliminary injunction, and eventually affirmed in part and reversed in part.2 The Court of Appeals opined that the “decentralized approval” subrule of Civil Service Rule 4-6 was “facially unconstitutional”3 and that the trial court did not abuse its dis-
Central to the present issue, the Court of Appeals rejected defendant‘s position that plaintiffs should not have been granted any preliminary injunction whatsoever because of their failure to show irreparable harm. The Court of Appeals stated:
Defendant next argues that no injunction should have been ordered where plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction was not issued. It argues that “[a] bare allegation of a constitutional violation fails to demonstrate irreparable harm.” We disagree because
Const 1963, art 11, § 5 specifically provides that “[v]iolation of any of the provisions hereof may be restrained or observance compelled by any citizen of the state.” As a matter of first impression, we believe that this language is a constitutional declaration that a violation ofConst 1963, art 11, § 5 , in itself, amounts to irreparable harm supporting injunctive relief. [236 Mich App 106 (emphasis added).]
We granted defendant‘s application for leave to appeal, “limited to the issue whether a showing of irreparable harm is required to justify a preliminary injunction against an alleged violation of section 5.” 463 Mich 925 (2000).
II. ANALYSIS
We review a trial court‘s grant of injunctive relief for an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Holly Twp v Dep‘t of Natural Resources, 440 Mich 891 (1992) (explaining that “granting of injunctive relief is within the sound discretion of the trial court, although the decision must not be arbitrary and must be based on the facts of the particular case“).
Ordinarily, the first requirement that a party must meet to request a trial court to grant any type of relief, including an injunction, is that the party have “standing” to request the relief. This means that a party is normally required to have a sufficiently concrete interest in bringing a case that it can be expected to provide effective advocacy. Allstate Ins Co v Hayes, 442 Mich 56, 68; 499 NW2d 743 (1993). Said another way, standing has been described as a requirement that a party ordinarily must have a substantial personal interest at stake in a case or controversy, as opposed merely to having a generalized
It is this requirement that unquestionably is targeted by
It is important to be clear that the present appeal involves only the requirements for preliminary injunctive relief, an extraordinary remedy that is sometimes granted before a case is even decided on the merits. It is beyond reasonable dispute that a trial court has the authority, and, in appropriate cases, the duty, to enter permanent injunctive relief against a constitutional violation. See, e.g., Sharp v Lansing, 464 Mich 792; 629 NW2d 873 (2001) (discussing availability of injunctive relief against a constitutional violation). Moreover, the plain language of
To evaluate plaintiff‘s position regarding the requirements for a preliminary injunction in the present context, it is appropriate to begin our analysis by considering the historical background of
It is generally accepted that the state‘s modern civil service system had its genesis in the 1936 Report of the Civil Service Study Commission. Council No 11, AFSCME v Civil Service Comm, 408 Mich 385, 397; 292 NW2d 442 (1980). That commission issued “a 94-page ringing condemnation of the longstanding ‘spoils system‘, or ‘patronage system’6 of state personnel practices and detailed recommendations for the enactment of legislation to establish a state civil ser-
However, the bulk of the civil service reforms enacted in 1937 were gutted during the next regular session of the Legislature in 1939 when, “obviously dissatisfied with reform that had been wrought, the newly elected anti-civil service Legislature adopted a group of bills designed primarily to destroy the civil service system which had just been established. . . .” Council No 11, supra at 399.7 Fed up, the response of the people of the state in 1940 was to place on the ballot and pass a constitutional amendment,8 described formally as Const 1908, art 6, § 22. This amendment included provisions that defined the state employees to be included in the state civil service, provided for the composition and duties of the Civil Service Commission, and, in language that has been continued in our present Michigan Constitution in
Given this background, we then must ask what exactly was it that the people would have understood they were doing in passing this amendment, because
To begin this probe, basic doctrines regarding constitutional construction are useful to recall. Initially, of course, if the language of a constitutional provision is plain, it is that meaning we give to it. As was stated in Peterman v Dep‘t of Natural Resources, 446 Mich 177, 184; 521 NW2d 499 (1994), we examine how constitutional language was “understood by its ratifiers at the time of its adoption.” This is straightforward. Yet, what if the constitutional language had no plain meaning, but rather is a technical legal term or a phrase of art? In answering this, the great constitutional law scholar and member of this Court in the nineteenth century, Justice THOMAS M. COOLEY, said that in construing technical legal terms used in a constitution “we must suppose these words to be employed in their technical sense.” 1 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (8th ed), p 132. Paying heed to this rule, this Court applied this principle to the technical legal phrase “assistance of counsel” in People v Pickens, 446 Mich 298; 521 NW2d 797 (1994):
[T]he phrase “assistance of counsel,” by necessity, will not be defined in great detail in the constitution. Nevertheless, it is one of many terms that has “acquired a well-understood meaning, which the people must be supposed to have had in view in adopting them.” [Id. at 310, quoting 1 Cooley, supra at 132.]
Let us then examine what was understood in the law in 1940 by the phrase “injunctive proceedings.” The traditional rules governing “injunctive proceedings” were well established by 1940 including a requirement of a showing of irreparable injury to the person or entity seeking the injunction as a condition for obtaining a preliminary injunction or, as it was often termed at the time, an interlocutory injunction. Indeed, a 1905 treatise on injunctions provided that
Accordingly, we conclude that a particularized showing of irreparable harm was, and still is, as our
We underscore, in accordance with the limited grant of leave in this case, that we are concerned only with the requirements for a preliminary injunction. This opinion expresses no view about the proper resolution of the merits of this case, i.e., whether Civil Service Rule 4-6 is violative in whole or in part of
III. RESPONSE TO DISSENT
Contrary to the possible implication of the dissent, this opinion does not preclude the ability to obtain any injunctive relief when the Civil Service Commission acts in violation of
Thus, the dissent is incorrect in describing our approach as being “to completely destroy the power of ‘any citizen’ to compel constitutional compliance.” Post at 240. Nothing in this opinion restricts, in any way, the authority of a trial court to grant appropriate relief, including entry of a permanent injunction, if a Michigan citizen establishes an actual violation of
Further, we are not “implying that irreparable harm must have already occurred in order for [preliminary] injunctive relief to be available.” Post at 236. Rather, as stated earlier, we recognize that a preliminary injunction may be appropriately entered if it is demonstrated that “the applicant will suffer irreparable injury” absent the preliminary injunction (and the other appropriate prerequisites to the grant of a preliminary injunction are met), post at 241, quoting Michigan State Employees Ass‘n, supra. In other words, a trial court may properly grant a preliminary injunction if a party shows that it will otherwise imminently suffer irreparable harm and the other proper grounds for such relief are satisfied.
Finally, unlike the dissent, we see nothing “inconsistent,” post at 242, n 7, in recognizing that any Michigan citizen has “standing” to challenge an alleged violation of
IV. CONCLUSION
We conclude that the lower courts erred in viewing a particularized showing of irreparable harm as unnecessary to obtaining a preliminary injunction against an alleged violation of
CORRIGAN, C.J., and YOUNG and MARKMAN, JJ., concurred with TAYLOR, J.
Entered: July 30, 2001
01-34
Proposed Amendments of Rules 3.310, 7.208, and 7.213 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering amendments of Rules 3.310, 7.208, and 7.213 of the Michigan Court Rules. Before determining whether the proposal should be adopted, changed before adoption, or rejected, this notice is given to afford any interested person the opportunity to comment on the form or the merits of the proposal. We welcome the views of all who wish to address the proposal or who wish to suggest alternatives. Before adoption or rejection, this proposal will be considered at a public hearing by the Court. The Clerk of the Court will publish a schedule of future public hearings.
Publication of this proposal does not mean that the Court will issue an order on the subject, nor does it imply probable adoption of the proposal in its present form.
[The present language would be amended as indicated below.]
(A) Preliminary Injunctions.
(1)-(4) [Unchanged.]
(5) If a preliminary injunction is granted, the court shall promptly schedule a pretrial conference. The trial of the action on the merits must be held within 6 months after the injunction is granted, unless good cause is shown or the parties stipulate to a
(B)-(I) [Unchanged.]
(A) Limitations. After a claim of appeal is filed or leave to appeal is granted, the trial court or tribunal may not set aside or amend the judgment or order appealed from except
(1) by order of the Court of Appeals,
(2) by stipulation of the parties,
(3) after a decision on the merits in an action in which a preliminary injunction was granted, or
(4) as otherwise provided by law.
In a criminal case, the filing of the claim of appeal does not preclude the trial court from granting a timely motion under subrule (B).
(B)-(I) [Unchanged.]
(A)-(B) [Unchanged.]
(C) Priority on Calendar. The priority of cases on the session calendar is in accordance with the dates of the clerk‘s notice to the parties, except that precedence shall be given to interlocutory criminal appeals, and child custody cases, and interlocutory appeals from the grant of a preliminary injunction.
(D)-(E) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment: The proposed amendments of
Publication of this proposal does not mean that the Court will issue an order on the subject, nor does it imply probable adoption in its present form. Timely comments will be substantively considered, and your assistance is appreciated by the Court.
A copy of this order will be given to the secretary of the State Bar and to the State Court Administrator so that they can make the notifications specified in
I
The majority spends pages upon pages discussing the accepted maxim of constitutional construction that the constitution should be given the meaning intended by the people. Additional pages are dedicated to establishing that the existence of irreparable harm is traditionally a precondition to the issuance of
The majority errs at the outset by determining that the rule that irreparable harm must be shown somehow forms a basis for vacating the preliminary injunction issued by the trial court. Yet, though I agree with the majority that irreparable harm must be shown, I believe that the majority is simply wrong in basing reversal on the theory that “when considering the request for a preliminary injunction in this matter, the trial court and the Court of Appeals were in error in granting any preliminary injunction without a showing of concrete irreparable harm to the interests of a party before the Court.” Ante at 226. Rather, both courts explained why irreparable harm to the parties would exist in this case and clearly found there to be a clear likelihood of success on the claim of a constitutional violation. The trial court in fact discussed the issue at great length and the trial court opinion reveals that the court understood the requirements of a preliminary injunction. The following excerpt unequivocally shows that the trial court validly exercised its discretion and found concrete irreparable harm to the interests of the parties before the Court:
Irreparable harm, there has been a zealous plea by the Commission, Counsel for the Commission that these Plaintiffs have to show, as I hear the argument, some particularized harm. Given that none of their positions are immedi-
ately scheduled to be eliminated, they cannot make that showing. * * *
I understand the Plaintiffs[‘] claim, assert their positions are affected, but as I view this case, they stand before this Court as citizens of this state, who challenge the conduct of the Commission in light of its constitutional obligations. And, unless I read this constitutional language as having no meaning whatsoever, a part of Article 11, Section 5 of the 1963 Constitution says very clearly violation of any of the provisions hereof may be restrained or observance compelled by injunction, injunctive or mandamus proceedings brought by any citizen of the state. No qualification there.
And, that clearly means does somebody have to show some particularized injury or damage as a result. I don‘t think so. Because, every citizen of this state is entitled [to] have a civil service system that works, that does the state‘s business and does it fairly, does it honestly, does it economically, and we‘re all affected. So to that extent, to the extent that any contract is entered to [sic] in violation of this constitutional provision, that any position is abolished in violation of the constitutional provision, every citizen of this state is damaged. And, I believe that I am obligated here to effectuate that language certainly, that language takes precedence over . . . some of these other holdings.2
I mean, we need to keep in mind . . . this came about because the Legislature did not act sufficiently in the view of Michigan citizens to protect their interest in having a strong system of merit in selecting public employees, but in effect allowed, and apparently had been present for many, many years, a spoils system. And so, they weren‘t just satisfied to make changes and create [
Const 1963, art 11, § 5 ], they said not only are we making changes, we are going to empower any citizen of this state by an action, essentially, at any time to assure that this provision is complied with.
So in effect, if a violation of this occurs, my reading is that would be irreparable harm, not just to the Plaintiffs, but to every citizen of this state and the Plaintiffs or someone else, the citizens of Bay City or the factory workers of General Motors Corporation can file an action to bar this unlawful, alleged unlawful activity. And in this case, I‘m satisfied that there is a sufficient showing the citizens would be harmed, because it appears that at least one or more of the provisions of Article 11, Section 5 are not complied with under the rules as proposed. [Emphasis added.]
This language demonstrates that the trial court‘s holding was not that plaintiffs are relieved from showing irreparable harm, but that a constitutional violation irreparably harms every individual in this state. In other words, the harm resulting in an art 11, § 5 context does not flow from an action taken by the Civil Service Commission against a specific individual as would be the case under the commission‘s view. Instead, the harm flows from the violation itself, and flows to each individual citizen.
The majority holds that any citizen may obtain permanent injunctive relief after a constitutional violation occurs, but that a citizen may not obtain a preliminary injunction to enjoin the probable harm that could result from a constitutional violation. The majority correctly recognizes that the derogation of a constitutional right has been held to be irreparable harm for the purposes of determining injunctive relief. Ante at 219-220. Thus, the type of injury wrought by a constitutional violation can clearly be irreparable. The majority‘s error lies in implying that irreparable harm must have already occurred in order for injunctive relief to be available. The fundamental flaw in this logic is that the point of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo ante and pre-
Further, by precluding preliminary relief in cases where a citizen alleges that irreparable harm will result if a constitutional violation is allowed to occur, the majority essentially rewrites the constitution as providing that “violation of any of the provisions hereof may be restrained or compelled by any citizen seeking permanent injunctive or mandamus relief.” However, the constitution is not so limited. It allows any citizen to compel observance or restrain violations through injunctive or mandamus proceedings. As the majority aptly points out, Michigan has long recognized the availability of preliminary injunctions. Those injunctions are necessarily issued through injunctive proceedings.
Like the trial court, the Court of Appeals recognized that irreparable harm to every citizen occurs simultaneously with a constitutional violation. It wrote:
Defendant next argues that no injunction should have been ordered where plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction was not issued. It argues that “a bare allegation of constitutional violation fails to demonstrate irreparable harm.” We disagree because
Const 1963, art 11, § 5 specifically provides that “violation of any of the provisions hereof may be restrained or observance compelled by injunctive or mandamus proceedings brought by any citizen of the state.” As amatter of first impression, we believe that this language is a constitutional declaration that a violation of Const 1963, art 11, § 5 , in itself, amounts to irreparable harm supporting injunctive relief.3 [236 Mich App 96, 106; 600 NW2d 362 (1999).]
In light of these statements by the courts below, I believe it clear that the problem the majority finds is not with the failure to address the existence of irreparable harm, but with the idea that the irreparable harm caused by a violation of
II
The majority acknowledges that the lower courts stated that a constitutional violation amounts to irreparable harm, but nonetheless concludes that neither court required a finding of the requisite irreparable harm. Specifically, the majority writes:
Critical to the issue presently before this Court, the trial court opined in its oral ruling on the preliminary injunction motion that a showing of “some particularized injury or damage” was not necessary to obtain a preliminary injunction against an alleged violation of
Const 1963, art 11, § 5 . The trial court stated that “if a violation of [§ 5] occurs, my reading is that would be irreparable harm, not just to the Plaintiffs, but to every citizen of the state.” [Ante at 215.]
While it may have been more clearly stated, the emphasized language indicates that “a bare allegation of a constitutional violation” is sufficient to show irreparable harm. In other words, the Court of Appeals concluded that a showing of irreparable harm to a particular party is not required for a preliminary injunction against an alleged violation of § 5. [Ante at 217.]
While I agree with the majority that the courts below said that a constitutional violation is equivalent to irreparable harm, I do not agree with the conclusion that the courts “in other words” implied that harm to an individual party need not be shown. Rather, in my view, the courts below “in other words” said that every individual citizen is irreparably harmed by a constitutional violation. I am at a loss to understand how the Court‘s statement that these plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm can simultaneously be a conclusion that the plaintiffs need not show that they themselves would suffer irreparable harm. The majority makes the mistake of reading the trial court opinion as providing that any citizen can bring suit by saying, “I can bring suit for all of us, because society as a whole is harmed by a violation of
[S]tanding has been described as a requirement that a party ordinarily must have a substantial personal interest . . . as opposed merely to having a generalized interest in the same manner as any citizen. . . . It is this requirement that unquestionably is targeted by § 5 when it provides that “[v]iolation of any of the provisions hereof may be restrained or observance compelled by injunctive or mandamus proceedings brought by any citizen of the state.” [Ante at 217-219.]
Despite the fact that the aforementioned constitutional language mentions neither standing nor the requirements for a preliminary injunction, the majority reaches the conclusion that particularized injury is suspended for the purposes of coming before the Court, but once there, particularity is reintroduced in association with the requirement that irreparable harm be shown. In other words, under the majority‘s approach, anyone can come before the court to seek an injunction, but if the person cannot show the type of particularized harm that would normally be required for standing purposes, then they cannot obtain relief in the form of a preliminary injunction. The effect of such an approach is to completely destroy the power of “any citizen” to compel constitutional compliance.
The constitutional language does not provide only that injunctive proceedings may be brought by any citizen. It additionally says that a violation may be restrained or observance compelled by any citizen. Yet, under the majority view, only a citizen whose job will be adversely affected by a decision of the commission may restrain the violation by preliminary injunctive proceedings. Thus, in the context of preliminary proceedings, the protection afforded to “any cit-
I believe that the problem created by the majority approach stems in part from the fact that the majority injects particularity into its analysis of irreparable harm, rather than limiting the question of particularity to the standing context. The generally accepted analysis used in preliminary injunction cases considers four factors:
harm to the public interest if an injunction issues, whether the harm to the applicant in the absence of a stay outweighs the harm to the opposing party if a stay is granted; the strength of the applicant‘s demonstration that the applicant is likely to reveal on the merits; and demonstration that the applicant will suffer irreparable injury if a preliminary injunction is not granted. [MSEA v Dep‘t of Mental Health, supra.]
The focus of the four-factor analysis is on the type of injury rendered by the issuance or nonissuance of an injunction. In the context of issuing injunctions, irreparable injury has special meaning under the law. The injury is traditionally defined in terms of whether the injury can be repaired by means other than through the issuance of an injunction.5
For all these reasons, I believe that the majority opinion is erroneous and that its reasoning fails to
WEAVER and KELLY, JJ., concurred with CAVANAGH, J.
Notes
Despite its attempts to leave the issue narrow, however, the majority expands its opinion to include discussion of Michigan‘s Rules of Court. Because of how the majority decides this case, the opinion is not affected by the proposed court rule incorporated into the majority‘s appendix. My comments about the substantive propriety of the court rule will be reserved for discussion as part of the standard procedure for implementing court rule changes.No payment for personal services shall be made or authorized until the provisions of this constitution pertaining to civil service have been complied with in every particular. Violation of any of the provisions hereof may be restrained or observance compelled by injunctive or mandamus proceedings brought by any citizen of the state.
The Court of Appeals did say that an “additional” showing of irreparable harm was unnecessary, but it first found that the threatened harm would be irreparable because of the alleged constitutional violation.For purposes of reviewing the preliminary injunction only, we determine that the trial court properly concluded that plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their constitutional challenge to the “decentralized approval” procedure, although it incorrectly determined that they will likely prevail in their constitutional challenge to the preapproval provision. . . . We stress, however, that our analysis of these issues is for the purpose of ruling on the propriety of the preliminary injunction only. When the matters are tried, the actual determinations of all plaintiffs’ claims must initially be made by the trier of fact in the trial court. [236 Mich App 104-105.]
In a similar vein, the United States Supreme Court observed in Lewis v Casey, 518 US 343, 349; 116 S Ct 2174; 135 L Ed 2d 606 (1996):[W]e risk a progressive impairment of the effectiveness of the federal courts if their limited resources are diverted increasingly from their historic role to the resolution of public-interest suits brought by litigants who cannot distinguish themselves from all taxpayers or all citizens. The irreplaceable value of the power [of judicial review] articulated by Mr. Chief Justice Marshall lies in the protection it has afforded the constitutional rights and liberties of individual citizens and minority groups against oppressive or discriminatory government action. It is this role, not public esteem for the federal courts and has permitted the peaceful coexistence of the countermajoritarian implications of judicial review and the democratic principles upon which our Federal Government in the final analysis rests.
The considerations outlined above underlie, I believe, the traditional hostility of the Court to federal taxpayer or citizen standing where the plaintiff has nothing at stake other than his interest as a taxpayer or citizen. It merits noting how often and how unequivocally the Court has expressed its antipathy to efforts to convert the Judiciary into an open forum for the resolution of political or ideological disputes about the performance of government.
For example, Black‘s Law Dictionary provides the following explanation, “‘Irreparable injury’ justifying an injunction is that which cannot be adequately compensated in damages or for which damages cannot be compensable in money.” Black‘s Law Dictionary (6th ed).The requirement that an inmate alleging a violation of Bounds [v Smith, 430 US 817; 97 S Ct 1491; 52 L Ed 2d 72 (1977),] must show actual injury derives ultimately from the doctrine of standing, a constitutional principle that prevents courts of law from undertaking tasks assigned to the political branches. It is the role of courts to provide relief to claimants, in individual or class actions, who have suffered, or will imminently suffer, actual harm; it is not the role of courts, but that of the political branches, to shape the institutions of government in such fashion as to comply with the laws and the Constitution.
Ante at 217-218.The spoils system presupposes the existence of government jobs to be filled with loyal party workers who can be counted on not to do the state job better than it can be done by others, but rather to do the party work or the candidate work when elections roll around. The state office buildings are nearly empty during political conventions, and state money has always been used indirectly of course—to enable state employees to move about the state and keep political fences in repair.
It is impossible to estimate the loss to the state of this kind of political activity, but the most inexperienced know that the amount is considerable. Not only is the regular work of the state interrupted or interfered with, but its services and funds are put at the disposal of political parties. [Id. at 397, n 10.]
Finally, in 1940, apparently dissatisfied with four years of political maneuvering and legislative advance and retreat on the civil service system issue, the people of Michigan adopted a constitutional amendment establishing a constitutional state civil service system, superseding the 1939 legislation.
All words and phrases shall be construed and understood according to the common and approved usage of the language; but technical words and phrases, and such as may have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in the law, shall be construed and understood according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning. [
MCL 8.3a .]