In a victory for low-wage workers, the Michigan Supreme Court on Wednesday overruled the Legislature and reinstated major changes to the state’s minimum wage and paid sick leave laws.
The court ruled 4-3 that Republican lawmakers violated the state constitution.
The laws are the result of a 2018 petition drive that collected more than 280,000 signatures.
The Legislature has several options, including putting the proposed law on the ballot for voters to decide or simply passing it. Republican lawmakers chose to approve the bills but then watered them down after that year’s election and before Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer took office in 2019.
Republican Gov. Rick Snyder signed the rollback bill before leaving office, setting off years of legal challenges that culminated in the state’s Supreme Court.
“Allowing the Legislature to bypass voters and repeal the same laws that were just passed in the same legislative session would hinder voters’ ability to participate in the legislative process,” Justice Elizabeth Welch wrote.
Welch and the three justices who sided with her sided with Democrats, while the three who dissented sided with Republicans.
Michigan’s current minimum wage is $10.33 an hour; it’s less for workers in restaurants and other tipped industries. That amount will increase to $12 by 2022, according to the petition campaign’s plans.
The Supreme Court said the new salary scale, adjusted for inflation determined by the state treasurer, must come into effect in February next year and then rise in subsequent years. The law would also phase out the lower minimum wage for tipped restaurant workers.
Sick leave rules mean many businesses will be required to provide workers with paid time off.
The Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a statewide business organization, expressed dismay at “the court’s activism.”
But unions and campaigners praised the decision. Ron Bieber, president of the Michigan AFL-CIO, said Republicans “literally stole money from the pockets of Michigan workers” during the five-year legal battle.
Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement acknowledged in a dissent that there was reason to be frustrated with what lawmakers were doing, but that there was nothing in the Constitution to prevent such behavior and that “despite intervening violations Tempting as it may be, this Court lacks sweeping limits on its powers.
