A February 10, 2026 opinion from the Kent County Business Court offers a timely and effective entry point into this subject because it captures two themes that now dominate Michigan temporary restraining order practice in restrictive-covenant litigation. First, trial courts are applying the familiar four-factor injunction framework with rigor. Second, they are insisting that any restraining order be precise, concrete, and genuinely necessary. In MillerKnoll, Inc. v. Macciocca, the court began not with broad rhetoric about unfair competition, but with procedure. It emphasized that Michigan law governed the burden, form, scope, and elements of injunctive relief, even though Connecticut substantive law governed the contract dispute, and it reiterated that injunctions are extraordinary remedies to be used sparingly and only when the record justifies urgent intervention. That opening move is revealing. Michigan business courts are not treating restrictive-covenant cases as a special category in which emergency relief follows automatically from the existence of a noncompete or nonsolicit. They are treating them as injunction cases first, contract cases second, and only then as employment disputes.⁴
That same Kent County opinion is an especially strong hook because it foregrounds a point many litigants still underestimate in Michigan, a restraining order must do more than declare that a covenant is enforceable. Under the governing court rule, an order granting injunctive relief must state the reasons for issuance, be specific in its terms, and describe in reasonable detail the acts restrained rather than merely incorporate allegations by reference. The court in MillerKnoll highlighted that rule at the outset, which signals how judges are approaching these motions in practice. A restrictive-covenant plaintiff that comes to court asking for a broad order commanding an employee not to compete, without defining the conduct to be stopped, the customers to be protected, the information at risk, or the acts that allegedly threaten imminent harm, is already in a difficult position. Michigan courts increasingly want orders that can be obeyed, enforced, and reviewed without guesswork.⁴
The substantive starting point remains Michigan’s restrictive-covenant statute. Michigan does not prohibit employee noncompetes categorically. Instead, it permits an employer to obtain a covenant that protects reasonable competitive business interests so long as the restraint is reasonable as to duration, geography, and the type of employment or line of business restricted. Just as importantly, the statute authorizes a court to limit an unreasonable covenant and enforce it as limited. That statutory structure matters because it explains why Michigan courts rarely approach these disputes in absolute terms. The question usually is not whether the employer has a covenant and therefore wins, or whether the employee changed jobs and therefore loses. The real question is whether the employer has identified a legitimate, protectable interest and whether the emergency relief requested actually fits the circumstances shown in the record. ¹ ⁵
That is also why Michigan judges continue to repeat a proposition that employers sometimes treat as secondary, but courts regard as central: a restrictive covenant must protect something more than the employer’s desire to avoid competition. Michigan courts distinguish between preventing unfair competitive advantage and preventing ordinary competition. Protectable interests commonly include confidential information, trade secrets, and customer relationships or goodwill developed through the employer’s efforts. What a covenant cannot lawfully do is prevent a departing employee from using general knowledge, general skill, or ordinary experience acquired over time in a profession. In practice, that distinction has become one of the principal fault lines in TRO litigation. The more the employer can tie the requested restraint to customer diversion, misuse of specific confidential information, or appropriation of employer-developed goodwill, the more plausible emergency relief becomes. The more the motion reads like an effort to keep a capable employee off the market, the more skepticism Michigan courts tend to show. ¹ ⁵
On the procedural side, published Michigan authority continues to supply trial courts with the same four-factor framework. In Johnson v. Michigan Minority Purchasing Council, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed that a court deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction should consider likelihood of success on the merits, danger of irreparable harm, absent an injunction, comparative harm to the parties, and harm to the public interest. The court also reiterated two related propositions that are especially important in restrictive-covenant disputes: preliminary relief is inappropriate where an adequate legal remedy exists, and mere apprehension of future injury is not enough. Although Johnson was not a noncompete case, Michigan business courts are using that framework in restrictive-covenant disputes because it provides the governing equitable template. The result is that restrictive-covenant plaintiffs now must prove a conventional injunction case rather than merely point to a contract and demand emergency enforcement. ²
That framework has practical consequences for timing. Many lawyers still talk as though the TRO is the principal event. In Michigan business-court practice, however, the TRO is often only a threshold issue, and the real fight quickly becomes the preliminary-injunction hearing. That shift matters because judges want a record, not merely accusations. In the February 2026 Kent County case, for example, the court noted the motion’s filing history, the parties’ conference call, the stipulated briefing schedule, and the later hearing date before ruling. That sequence illustrates a broader point: unless the plaintiff can truly justify ex parte intervention, Michigan judges often prefer a short, accelerated adversarial process to a one-sided emergency order. That preference reflects both fairness and confidence in the four-factor framework; judges would rather hear both sides quickly than enter a broad employment restraint on a thin paper record.⁴
That judicial caution becomes even more apparent in ex parte TRO requests. Michigan’s rule permits an ex parte temporary restraining order only if specific facts in an affidavit or verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury will result from the delay required to give notice, or that notice itself will precipitate adverse action before the court can issue an order. Recent business-court opinions applying that rule in restrictive-covenant settings show just how demanding that standard is. In one Oakland County business-court decision, the court denied ex parte TRO relief because the plaintiff had not shown that a few hours’ delay for notice would materially worsen the harm, had relied too heavily on information and belief, and had not persuasively explained why notice would trigger additional injury. In another matter, the court refused ex parte relief where the plaintiff’s own chronology showed it had already been aware of the alleged conduct for some time. ³
Those ex parte rulings reveal an emerging practical reality in Michigan restrictive-covenant cases. Courts are reluctant to use the TRO device as a substitute for a noticed preliminary-injunction motion when the employer has already known about the problem for days or weeks. That is not because judges are indifferent to restrictive covenants. It is because TROs are meant to address true immediacy. If the employee has already joined the competitor, if the employer has already sent cease-and-desist letters, or if the alleged customer contact has already occurred, the plaintiff must explain why notice itself will cause a fresh, imminent injury rather than simply formalize a dispute already underway. Courts are increasingly unwilling to infer that urgency. They want it established with evidence. ³
Irreparable harm is therefore doing a great deal of work in these cases. Michigan courts repeatedly describe a particularized showing of irreparable harm as indispensable. Harm must be certain and great, actual rather than theoretical, and of a kind not adequately remedied by money damages. That doctrinal formulation may sound abstract, but its effect in restrictive-covenant cases is concrete. If the plaintiff can reduce the alleged loss to a dollar figure, or if the only identified injury is lost revenue on business that can be traced and valued, the case for emergency relief becomes much weaker. Recent Michigan business-court opinions have underscored this point by denying injunctions when the alleged injury boiled down to quantifiable economic loss or unsupported fears about future reputational damage. ²
At the same time, Michigan courts do not treat all business harm as reducible to dollars. They continue to recognize that goodwill can qualify as irreparable harm because goodwill is difficult to value with precision and, once damaged, may not be fully repairable through a later damages award. In Johnson, the Court of Appeals accepted that loss of goodwill can constitute irreparable harm when the plaintiff shows more than abstract concern. The court did not merely say that reputational injury sounds serious and therefore qualifies. It relied on evidence that the plaintiffs’ business relationships and contracting opportunities depended on a status the injunction would preserve, and that the threatened loss could affect future commercial relationships in ways not easily measured after the fact. That is the kind of evidentiary grounding Michigan trial courts are looking for in restrictive-covenant disputes as well. ²
The April 16, 2025 Kent County Business Court opinion in Bluum provides a useful illustration of what a persuasive record looks like in a restrictive-covenant injunction fight. There, the employer did not rely on generic assertions that former employees always know confidential information and always threaten future loss. It came forward with affidavits and exhibits indicating that the former employees had joined a competitor, continued working with the same clients, and that the employer discovered the overlap when clients mistakenly sent emails to the employees’ old company addresses. The court also cited evidence suggesting that the competitor had not previously done substantial business with certain customers but began doing so after the employees’ arrival. On that record, the court concluded that the risk of continued customer diversion was not speculative and that future losses to customer goodwill could not be measured adequately at that stage.⁵
What is especially important about Bluum is not only that the employer obtained relief, but how it obtained relief. The court did not treat irreparable harm as established by contract language alone. It found harm because the evidentiary record connected the covenant to identifiable accounts, actual customer movement, and a continuing threat to relationships the employer had built over time. In other words, Michigan courts appear more willing to grant relief when the plaintiff can tell a fact-specific story about how the employee’s new role interacts with existing client relationships and confidential information, and less willing when the motion rests on generalized assumptions about competition. That trend should shape how lawyers build affidavits, choose exhibits, and frame the proposed order.⁵ ²
Another notable feature of Michigan practice is the growing emphasis on tailoring. In Bluum, the Kent County Business Court expressly recognized that courts should balance the former employer’s legitimate business interests against the former employee’s ability to earn a living. Rather than ordering the employees to stop working for the competitor altogether, the court crafted a narrower injunction that allowed continued employment while restraining the employees from violating specific nonsolicitation, confidentiality, and related provisions. That approach is highly instructive. Michigan courts are showing that even when they find the injunction factors satisfied, they may prefer targeted restraints over blunt, job-ending orders. As a matter of litigation strategy, that means a plaintiff who asks only for the harshest possible relief may actually undermine its own chances if a narrower remedy would adequately protect the interest at stake.⁵
That same emphasis on tailoring helps explain why the February 2026 MillerKnoll opinion is so useful as a drafting lesson. Although that case turned on Connecticut substantive law, the Kent County court made clear that Michigan injunctive practice demands precision. The opinion opened with the rule requiring specificity, then ultimately denied preliminary relief after concluding that the plaintiff was unlikely to prevail on the merits under the governing substantive law and that the court would not rewrite the covenant on the existing record. Particularly notable was the court’s statement that no evidence had been introduced from which it could establish the appropriate temporal or geographic boundaries for protection. Even where a court has power to shape relief, Michigan judges are signaling that they will not do counsel’s work for them. A party seeking emergency enforcement must supply the factual basis for the line the court is being asked to draw.⁴
That reluctance to accept contractual shortcuts appears elsewhere as well. Recent Michigan business-court opinions show that language in an agreement declaring any breach to be “irreparable harm” may help frame the parties’ expectations, but it is not a substitute for proof. One Oakland County opinion recently treated such a recital as relevant but still looked to the actual record, concluding that the plaintiff had not shown lost clients, market share, or goodwill sufficient to justify an injunction on the facts presented. That is a significant point for restrictive-covenant litigants. Michigan courts are not refusing to read contracts; they are refusing to let contract recitals displace equitable proof. In TRO practice, the evidentiary burden still belongs to the moving party.
The status quo concept also deserves attention because it often shapes the court’s intuition about emergency relief even when it is not the headline issue. Michigan injunction law repeatedly describes preliminary relief as a device for preserving the last actual, peaceable, noncontested status before the dispute intensified. In restrictive-covenant cases, however, identifying that status quo can be more complicated than parties sometimes acknowledge. Is the status quo the employee’s pre-resignation role, the employer’s customer relationships before solicitation began, the market position before confidential information allegedly changed hands, or the employee’s current employment once the job change has already occurred? Michigan courts appear increasingly sensitive to that complexity, which is one reason they often prefer narrow restraints targeted at solicitation or misuse of information rather than broad commands that attempt to restore a prior employment arrangement by force. ² ⁵
Taken together, these decisions suggest that Michigan courts are handling TROs in restrictive-covenant fights with a combination of doctrinal consistency and practical skepticism. The doctrine is familiar: reasonable covenant, legitimate competitive interest, four-factor injunction test, irreparable harm, balance of hardships, public interest, and specificity in the order. The skepticism lies in how rigorously courts are applying each step. They are asking whether the covenant truly protects something distinct from ordinary competition. They are asking whether the harm is genuinely imminent or merely asserted in urgent language. They are asking whether the requested restraint is framed with enough detail to be enforceable. And they are asking whether a narrower remedy could preserve the employer’s legitimate interests without unnecessarily impairing the employee’s ability to work. ¹ ² ⁴ ⁵
For employers, the lesson is not that TROs are unavailable in Michigan restrictive-covenant cases. It is that emergency relief now depends heavily on disciplined motion practice. The strongest motions are likely to be those supported by verified complaints and affidavits that identify the specific customers at risk, the precise confidential information at issue, the chronology showing why harm is imminent, and a proposed order that tells the court exactly what conduct to stop. A plaintiff that can demonstrate actual customer diversion, ongoing misuse of employer-developed relationships, or a real risk that notice will trigger rapid further harm still has a meaningful path to a TRO or preliminary injunction. But a plaintiff that relies on broad covenant language, generalized allegations of unfair competition, or a request to bar employment altogether without a developed evidentiary record may find that Michigan courts are far less receptive than the contract’s drafter assumed. ³ ⁴ ⁵
For departing employees and their new employers, the recent cases also offer a more nuanced picture than the old caricature that “Michigan enforces noncompetes” might suggest. Michigan courts are plainly willing to enforce reasonable covenants and to protect confidential information, goodwill, and customer relationships. But they are equally willing to deny or narrow emergency relief where the covenant is overbroad, the merits are uncertain, the plaintiff waited too long to justify ex parte relief, or the alleged injury can be addressed through damages. Employees defending these motions therefore do best when they can show that the new role uses general industry skill rather than employer-specific confidential information, that the employer’s alleged losses are quantifiable, that notice will not worsen the situation, and that a narrower order would fully address any legitimate concern. Michigan TRO practice has become less about slogans and more about proof. ¹ ² ³
The larger takeaway is that Michigan courts are not abandoning restrictive covenants, nor are they rubber-stamping them. They are moving toward a more evidence-driven and order-specific model of emergency enforcement. The February 10, 2026 Kent County Business Court opinion is a particularly effective hook because it shows the architecture of that model in plain view: start with the four factors, remember that injunctions are extraordinary, insist on specificity in the order itself, and do not rewrite or over-enforce a covenant without a record that justifies the exact restraint requested. When that approach is paired with the tailored relief seen in Bluum and the caution shown in recent ex parte TRO denials, the modern Michigan picture comes into focus. In restrictive-covenant fights, the court’s question is no longer merely whether the employer has a covenant. The court’s real question is whether the plaintiff has earned emergency equitable relief on these facts, in this posture, and in this precise form. ² ³ ⁴ ⁵
Contact Tishkoff
Tishkoff PLC specializes in business law and litigation. For inquiries, contact us at www.tish.law/contact/. & check out Tishkoff PLC’s Website (www.Tish.Law/), eBooks (www.Tish.Law/e-books), Blogs (www.Tish.Law/blog) and References (www.Tish.Law/resources).
Footnotes
1-Michigan Legislature, MCL 445.774a, Agreement or Covenant Protecting Business Interests of Employer. https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=MCL-445-774A
2- Johnson v. Michigan Minority Purchasing Council, 341 Mich App 1, 988 NW2d 800 (2022). https://law.justia.com/cases/michigan/court-of-appeals-published/2022/357979-5.html
3- NH Learning Solutions Corp. v. Haddad Jones Inc., Oakland County Business Court, No. 2021-186811-CB, Opinion and Order Denying Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue (Mar. 11, 2021). https://www.courts.michigan.gov/493cf8/siteassets/business-court-opinions/c06-2021-186811-cb-(march-11,-2021).pdf
4- MillerKnoll, Inc. v. Macciocca, Kent County Business Court, No. 25-21247-CBB, Opinion and Order (Feb. 10, 2026) https://www.courts.michigan.gov/490e19/siteassets/business-court-opinions/c17-2025-21247-cbb(february10,2026).pdf
5- Bluum of Minnesota, LLC and Bluum USA, Inc. v. AVI-SPL LLC, Kent County Business Court, No. 24-12593-CBB, Opinion and Order (Apr. 16, 2025). https://www.courts.michigan.gov/4978ed/siteassets/business-court-opinions/c17-2024-12593-cbb(april16,2025).pdf