All Briefing Complete in Legal Challenge to New Inland Lake Level Law; Reply Brief Makes Clear the Constitutional Stakes for Higgins Lake Riparians under PA 112

Today, Outside Legal Counsel PLC announced that all briefing is now complete in Semack v. Roscommon County, a landmark Sixth Circuit appeal challenging the State of Michigan’s retroactive attempt to dilute judicially-established lake-level rights at Higgins Lake. The plaintiffs, three riparian property owners, seek reversal of the district court’s dismissal and restoration of a core constitutional protection: due process before government strips vested property rights.

The case arises from Public Act 112 of 2024, which retroactively redefined lake-level orders as flexible “targets,” undermining decades-old judicial judgments protecting riparian rights. The district court dismissed for lack of standing; plaintiffs now seek reversal. 

This litigation asks a simple question with constitutional consequence: Can the government erase a judicially-created property right by statute, without notice or hearing? The plaintiffs’ reply brief answers in the only manner consistent with the rule of law—no.

The appellate briefing lays the record bare. For decades, the lake level of Higgins Lake was set by court order. That level created a “legitimate claim of entitlement”—binding, relied upon, and enforceable. 

The reply brief emphasizes that the injury occurred the moment lawmakers retroactively downgraded this judicial mandate into a mere “target.” The State did not regulate the right—it erased it. Constitutional protections do not turn on the level of the waterline. They turn on the level of government fidelity to due process.

The reply rejects the County’s characterization of lake levels as discretionary “water management.” When a court fixes a lake level after full statutory process, the balancing is complete. What remains is obligation. Government cannot convert command into convenience simply by renaming it. 

The reply argues that a judicial decree cannot be undone by legislative preference, just as a property boundary or easement cannot evaporate when officials find it inconvenient. Government cannot claim power first and justify process later. Due process is not a courtesy—it is a constitutional requirement.

The County argues no injury exists until the water falls. The reply shows why that is wrong. The injury is the legal deprivation itself, not the eventual manifestation. Rights are harmed when stripped, not only when consequences arrive. The Supreme Court has long held that procedural due-process violations are complete when the right is taken. 

The reply closes on a principle larger than any lake: If government may rewrite judicially-confirmed rights without due process, no property right in Michigan is safe. The Constitution erects guardrails—not suggestions—against that outcome.

“When courts speak, their decrees mean something. Government does not enjoy selective obedience,” said attorney Philip L. Ellison of Outside Legal Counsel. “The rule of law demands that vested property rights cannot be dissolved by legislative wordplay or administrative expedience. We have submitted our final brief, and we look forward to argument.”

Oral argument will follow in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Plaintiffs seek reversal and reinstatement of their due-process claim.