A Michigan judge on Wednesday found that while Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s stay-at-home order does “temporary harm” to the constitutional rights of Michigan residents, the harm doesn’t outweigh the public health risk posed by the coronavirus outbreak.

Steve Martinko, owner of an Oakland County landscaping business, and four other Michigan residents filed a lawsuit against the governor and other state officials claiming the stay-at-home order infringes on their constitutional rights and should be declared invalid. The “mandatory quarantine” and in-state travel restrictions violate due process rights, the plaintiffs argued.

Michigan Court of Claims Judge Christopher Murray ruled in favor of Whitmer, Attorney General Dana Nessel and Department of Natural Resources Director Daniel Eichinger on Wednesday, April 29.

“Our fellow residents have an interest to remain unharmed by a highly communicable and deadly virus,” Murray wrote in his opinion. “And since the state entered the Union in 1837, it has had the broad power to act for the public health of the entire state when faced with a public crisis.”

The stay-at-home order was first put in place March 24, suspending activities "not necessary to sustain or protect life." It's been extended through May 15 – with fewer restrictions.

Masks now required, motorboating is back and AirBnb rentals are banned: Here’s what changed in Michigan’s latest stay-home order

Michigan has had 40,399 people test positive for COVID-19, resulting in 3,670 deaths, as of Wednesday.

Martinko is the owner of Contender’s Tree and Lawn Service in Waterford and Farmington Hills. He’s also part of a separate lawsuit filed in federal court, which also seeks a court order to end the stay-at-home order as well as financial damages. That lawsuit is still pending.

Forcing Whitmer to end the stay-at-home order would not “serve in the public interest,” Murray ruled.

The plaintiffs in the Court of Claims case also attacked Michigan’s Emergency Management Act for giving the governor “uncontrolled, arbitrary power.” Murray disagreed, saying the act lays out specific procedures and criteria for the governor to declare a state of emergency.

“I am pleased with the court’s decision,” Nessel said in a news release. “This pandemic has already taken more than 3,600 lives in Michigan and many more around the world. The primary goal of the Stay Home, Stay Safe order has always been to protect human life.”

Plaintiffs also argued Whitmer should have only quarantined people who have the virus, or impose restrictions on certain regions of the state.

“Monday morning quarterbacking is the role of sports fans, not courts reviewing the factual basis supporting executive action to protect the public health,” Murray said. “Instead, it is the role of the executive and legislative branches to determine what steps are necessary when faced with a public health crisis.”

COVID-19 PREVENTION TIPS

In addition to washing hands regularly and not touching your face, officials recommend practicing social distancing, assuming anyone may be carrying the virus.

Health officials say you should be staying at least 6 feet away from others and working from home, if possible.

Carry hand sanitizer with you, and use disinfecting wipes or disinfecting spray cleaners on frequently-touched surfaces in your home (door handles, faucets, countertops) and when you go into places like stores.

Read more Michigan coronavirus coverage here

Wednesday, April 29: Latest developments on coronavirus in Michigan

Michigan sees 100 more coronavirus deaths, 1,100 new confirmed cases

U.P.’s painful dilemma: Almost no coronavirus now, but at what cost?

Protesters of Michigan’s coronavirus response removed from House gallery

Hospitals can’t deny service based on a person’s ‘worth,’ Whitmer orders

Construction to resume May 7 in Michigan

Henry Ford doctor who nearly died from coronavirus was on ventilator 9 days ago, now he’s home

Protest over Michigan’s state of emergency to go on, despite Facebook removing 2 events