Higgins Lake Riparian Owners Appeal Dismissal in Lake Level Case, Challenging Michigan’s Public Act 112

For Immediate Release | August 22, 2025
https://olcplc.com/public/media?1755869580

Three riparians have filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, challenging the dismissal of their federal lawsuit against Roscommon County and its Drain Commissioner, Chase Schepke. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleges that Michigan’s Public Act 112 of 2024 violates their constitutional due process rights by retroactively altering court-ordered lake levels for Higgins Lake, a 10,000-acre lake in Roscommon County, without notice or a hearing.

The case centers on a 1982 judicial order, issued under Michigan’s Inland Lake Levels Act (now Part 307 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act), which mandates specific summer and winter water levels for Higgins Lake. These levels, set at 1,154.11 feet and 1,153.61 feet respectively, ensure riparian owners’ ability to use docks, launch boats, and protect shoreline infrastructure. The plaintiffs argue that these court-ordered levels constitute a protected property interest, upheld by the Michigan Court of Appeals in Citizens for Higgins Lake Legal Levels v. Roscommon County Board of Commissioners, which confirmed the County’s non-discretionary duty to maintain them.

Attorney Philip L. Ellison of Outside Legal Counsel PLC represented the property owners in the CHiLLL case.

In 2024, Roscommon County, unwilling to comply with the 1982 order, spearheaded the passage of Public Act 112. This legislation redefines “normal level” from a strict mandate to a flexible “target,” allowing deviations that undermine the vested rights of riparian owners. The plaintiffs contend that this retroactive change, enacted without individualized notice or opportunity for a hearing, constitutes a "textbook" violation of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The district court dismissed the case on June 23, 2025, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing, claiming their injury was not sufficiently concrete. The appellants, also represented by Ellison, argue that this dismissal misapplies Supreme Court precedent, including Carey v. Piphus, which holds that procedural due process violations tied to protected property interests are actionable harms. The appeal seeks reversal and a remand for a full merits adjudication, emphasizing that the deprivation of their entitlement to stable lake levels causes concrete harms, such as damaged boats, unusable docks, and compromised seawalls.

“This case is about more than just water levels—it’s about whether the government can erase long-standing property rights through legislative fiat without due process,” said Ellison. “Our clients, like many other riparian owners, rely on the stability of the 1982 order to enjoy their property. Public Act 112 upends that without so much as a notice or a chance to be heard. That’s not how the Constitution works.”

A hearing date has not yet been set.


###