Jan. 16, Keith Crain in Crain’s Detroit Business: Moroun, as most everyone knows, is a party in an ongoing civil battle between the state of Michigan's transportation department and his privately held Ambassador Bridge company.
His jailing makes me very nervous for our democracy. The "state" and the courts can decide in a civil dispute to throw someone in jail indefinitely? I thought that was something left to totalitarian states around the world.
We all know that Matty Moroun and his bridge have been battling the state and the Canadian government for quite some time over lots of issues.
A couple of things…
First, Moroun’s jailing has nothing to do with battles with “the state and the Canadian government...over lots of issues.” It was the result of Moroun’s Detroit International Bridge Company’s two-year refusal to comply with a court order to comply with a contract.
I realize walking and chewing gum at the same time can be difficult, but let’s try.
Secondly, and more importantly, Crain fears for democracy because courts can jail someone “indefinitely” for civil contempt. That's akin akin to a child’s fear of monsters in the closet.
Technically, Moroun’s sentence wasn’t indefinite. Wayne County Circuit Judge Prentis Edwards ruled the sentence would end when Moroun’s company finally honors the Gateway Project contract, as the court ordered them to do in February 2010.
What’s more, jailing for civil contempt is not only acceptable, it’s black letter law.
MCL 600.1715, paragraph 2: If the contempt consists of the omission to perform some act or duty that is still within the power of the person to perform, the imprisonment shall be terminated when the person performs the act or duty or no longer has the power to perform the act or duty, which shall be specified in the order of commitment, and pays the fine, costs, and expenses of the proceedings, which shall be specified in the order of commitment.
Moroun is appealing the Circuit Court ruling, as is his right. And the Appeals Court stayed the jailing (though not the rest of the contempt ruling) in advance of the appeal. That seems like a prudent decision. Even in the "totalitarian" new world order in Keith Crain's head, it's still better to let a guilty man walk free for a month, while he exercises his right of appeal, than to wrongly imprison a man who ultimately may be innocent.
At issue in the appeal isn’t whether courts have the right to jail someone for civil contempt, but whether Moroun has the “power and authority” to force DIBC to comply with the court order.
If Crain or anyone else wants to argue Moroun doesn’t have that “power and authority,” that’s perfectly valid. But the histrionics about democracy's decline serves no purpose except to demonstrate one’s ignorance about American jurisprudence.