Introduction

The Michigan Supreme Court rendered a pivotal decision on July 29, 2020, in the case of Mays et al. v. Governor of Michigan et al. This case emerged from the infamous Flint water crisis, where the city of Flint, Michigan, experienced severe water contamination after switching its water source from the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD) to the Flint River in April 2014. The plaintiffs, comprising water users and property owners in Flint, filed a class-action lawsuit alleging that the defendants—state officials, including Governor Rick Snyder, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, and former emergency managers Darnell Earley and Jerry Ambrose—were responsible for the contamination, leading to property devaluation and significant health issues among Flint residents.

The key legal issues at stake were:

• Inverse Condemnation: Plaintiffs sought compensation for the decline in property values resulting from the government's actions.
• Substantive Due Process Violation: Plaintiffs alleged that their constitutional right to bodily integrity under Michigan's Constitution was violated by the harmful exposure to contaminated water.

Summary of the Judgment

In a majority opinion authored by Justice Bernstein, joined by Chief Justice McCormack and Justice Cavanagh, the Michigan Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision regarding the inverse condemnation claim. The Court determined that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that the defendants' actions were a substantial cause of the decline in property values. This decision hinged on the affirmation that the government took affirmative actions directed at plaintiffs' property and that the plaintiffs suffered a unique or special injury distinct from that experienced by similarly situated individuals.

However, the Court was equally divided on the issue of the substantive due process violation. Justice Viviano, concurring in part and dissenting in part, asserted that the right to bodily integrity does not encompass protection from exposure to contaminated water and that the defendants' conduct did not meet the high threshold of "conscience-shocking" behavior required to establish such a violation.

As a result, while the Court of Appeals' judgment on inverse condemnation was expressly affirmed, the overall opinion was affirmed by equal division, leading to a remand for further proceedings concerning the substantive due process claim.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key cases that have shaped the doctrine of inverse condemnation and substantive due process:

• RICHARDS v. WASHINGTON TERMINAL CO. (1914): Established that diminution in property value can constitute a taking under inverse condemnation.
• Thom v. State Highway Commission. (1965): Clarified that unique interference with property rights can warrant compensation.
• Spiek v. Department of Transportation. (1998): Emphasized the necessity of demonstrating a unique or special injury for inverse condemnation claims.
• Smith v. Department of Public Health. (1987): Recognized that constitutional torts under state constitutions may allow for damages, provided certain conditions are met.
• Hart v. Macomb County Community Mental Health Services. (2005): Abolished the "continuing violations" doctrine, affecting when statutory limitations begin to run.
• Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents. (1971): Although a federal case, it was discussed in relation to implied causes of action for constitutional violations.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's reasoning centered on two primary claims:

• Inverse Condemnation: The Court held that the plaintiffs adequately demonstrated that the government's switch of the water source directly led to physical damage to pipes and service lines, thereby substantially impairing property values. The affirmative actions by state and municipal agencies, coupled with the unique nature of the injury—a special or unique harm not commonly experienced by all water users—satisfied the elements required for inverse condemnation under Michigan law.
• Substantive Due Process: The Court was divided on this issue. The majority, represented by Justice Bernstein, recognized the constitutional claim but stopped short of granting summary disposition due to factual uncertainties regarding the accrual of the claim. Conversely, Justice Viviano argued that the claim did not meet the stringent standards of a due process violation, as the exposure to contaminated water, while grievous, did not rise to the level of "conscience-shocking" behavior.

Importantly, the Court acknowledged governmental immunity but noted that when the government voluntarily subjects itself to liability, as it did in this case, it must adhere to the procedural requirements set forth by the Court of Claims Act, including timely notice.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future cases involving municipal services and governmental actions that adversely affect property values or individual rights:

• Strengthening Property Rights: By affirming inverse condemnation in this context, the Court provides a robust mechanism for citizens to seek redress when government actions lead to property devaluation, ensuring that municipalities remain accountable.
• Governmental Accountability: The decision underscores the importance of governmental transparency and diligence in public services, particularly those as critical as water supply.
• Due Process Considerations: The split decision on substantive due process highlights the Court's cautious approach to expanding constitutional torts, signaling that such claims will require substantial evidence to move forward.
• Procedural Compliance: The emphasis on adhering to statutory notice requirements reinforces the necessity for plaintiffs to be diligent in following procedural mandates when filing claims against the state.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Inverse Condemnation

Inverse condemnation occurs when government actions result in the devaluation or impairment of a property owner's use of their property, even without a formal exercise of eminent domain. Essentially, it's a way for property owners to seek compensation when government projects or decisions adversely affect their property values.

Substantive Due Process

Substantive due process refers to certain fundamental rights protected by the Constitution from government interference, regardless of the procedures used to enforce them. This includes rights not explicitly mentioned but deemed fundamental based on historical and societal norms.

Governmental Immunity

Governmental immunity protects government entities and officials from being sued without their consent. However, when the government chooses to waive this immunity, as in the Flint water case, it becomes subject to legal actions and potential liabilities.

Statutory Notice Requirements

These are procedural rules set by law that dictate how and when a plaintiff must inform the government of their intent to sue. Compliance with these rules is crucial for the court to have jurisdiction over the case.

Conclusion

The Michigan Supreme Court's decision in Mays et al. v. Governor of Michigan et al. marks a significant affirmation of property rights under the doctrine of inverse condemnation, particularly in the context of municipal utilities. By upholding the plaintiffs' claims, the Court sends a clear message that governmental actions leading to property devaluation are subject to legal scrutiny and compensation. However, the split decision on the substantive due process claim underscores the Court's stringent standards for expanding constitutional torts, emphasizing the need for compelling evidence of unique and severe injuries.

Moving forward, this judgment serves as a critical reference point for both property owners and governmental bodies, highlighting the delicate balance between government decision-making and individual rights. It reinforces the necessity for municipalities to exercise due diligence and transparency in public services, ensuring that actions taken in the public interest do not inadvertently harm citizens' property values or well-being.

Additionally, the case underscores the importance of procedural compliance, particularly regarding statutory notice requirements, in maintaining the integrity of legal proceedings against the state. As such, Mays not only resolves a landmark case related to the Flint water crisis but also sets enduring legal principles that will govern future interactions between citizens and governmental entities in Michigan.