Court of Appeals upholds Ottawa County health officer's right to issue mask mandate
GRAND RAPIDS — Ottawa County Health Officer Lisa Stefanovsky acted legally and appropriately when she issues a pre-K-6 mask mandate during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, an appellate court ruled Thursday, Dec. 15.
More:Parent group sues Ottawa County over pre-K-6 mask mandate
More:Judge dismisses mask mandate lawsuit against Ottawa County health department
The lawsuit, filed by a parent group in September 2021, originally claimed Stefanovsky overstepped her authority and should have sought approval from the local governing board — the Ottawa County Board of Commissioners — before issuing the mask order.
The lawsuit named the Ottawa County Department of Public Health, Stefanovsky and the Ottawa County Board of Commissioners as defendants.
Despite parent protests at county board meetings, commissioners asserted they didn't have the authority to rescind Stefanovsky's order, nor fire her for issuing it. The county said, under Michigan law, Stefanovsky and other local health officers have authority to implement measures — such as mask mandates and quarantines — in public health emergencies.
In December 2021, 20th Circuit Court Judge Jon Hulsing sided with the county and dismissed the lawsuit.
The parents appealed Hulsing's ruling — but by that time, the COVID-19 landscape had shifted considerably. The mask order issued by OCDPH was set to expire Jan. 2, 2022.
One of the parameters for lifting the mask order, signed in August 2021 before the start of the coming school year, was the COVID-19 vaccine becoming available for children ages 5-11. In early November, a federal panel recommended the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine be made available for that age group.
The plaintiffs then amended their lawsuit to ask the Court of Appeals to rule on the validity of the order and whether such measures were subject to approval by a local governing board.
"Plaintiffs maintain that even though the mask mandate has expired, an actual controversy nonetheless exists entitling them to declaratory relief because defendants will continue to assert their authority to issue similar orders in the future," the COA wrote in its unanimous decision published Thursday.
The court took the unusual step of addressing that portion of the complaint because it recognized that health departments could find themselves in similar situations if and when another worldwide pandemic hits.
"Because the challenged order is no longer in effect, there is no pertinent relief that we can grant on appeal in relation to the particular order at issue, and any judgment would have no practical legal impact on the existing controversy," the court wrote in its decision.
"That said, the issue presented has public significance, and although a pandemic-related order may not be likely to recur, the issuance of some type of emergency order by the health officer is likely to recur in the future and yet evade judicial review because of the limited duration of many health emergencies."
Ultimately, the case boils down to the role of a health department versus the role of a health officer and how the responsibilities of each can be independent and subject to different rules, the COA opined.
Although Michigan law dictates health department "regulations" be subject to approval by a local governing board, health officer-issued "orders" supersede such rules, the court found.
Subscribe:Get all your breaking news and unlimited access to our local coverage
"In this case, plaintiffs argue that the mask mandate was procedurally invalid because it was not approved by the board as required by (state law). On its face, this argument is entirely without merit," the court said.
"(That law) applies to 'regulations' adopted by a 'local health department.' Here, we are concerned with an 'order' issued by a 'local health officer.' As the trial court astutely observed, the local health department and the local health officer are assigned different duties and powers under the Public Health Code."
The court concluded a public health officer is authorized to issue orders in circumstances "in which there is an immediate danger to health ... or to control an epidemic. There is no language in (state law) that requires a local health officer to give notice, allow comment or obtain approval by a board of commissioners before issuing an order," the court wrote.
While the lawsuit wound its way through the courts, it was leveraged as a rallying cry for parents disgruntled with state- and county-ordered pandemic mandates, including supporters and members of conservative political action committee Ottawa Impact.
Ottawa Impact supported numerous candidates for county board during the midterm election. The group campaigned primarily on the goals of firing Stefanovsky and cutting the health department's budget significantly for issuing the 2021 mandates.
More:Ottawa County Health Officer Lisa Stefanovsky announces retirement just weeks after fateful primary
All but one of the OI candidates were successful in their election bids, and the group will enjoy a majority on the Ottawa County Board of Commissioners come January.
Shortly after the August primary, Stefanovsky — health officer since 2006 — informed the county board she planned to retire, effective March 31.
— Sarah Leach is editor of The Holland Sentinel. Contact her at sarah.leach@hollandsentinel.com. Find her on Twitter @SentinelLeach.
This article originally appeared on The Holland Sentinel: Court of Appeals upholds Ottawa County health officer's right to issue mask mandate
