Michigan Supreme Court Vacates Court of Appeals Ruling of State Anti-Terror Statute

Michigan Supreme Court Vacates Court of Appeals Ruling, Temporarily Preserves State Anti-Terror Statute

March 28, 2025 -The Michigan Supreme Court vacated a ruling from the Michigan Court of Appeals that declared the state’s anti-terrorism statute unconstitutional, announced Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel. Today’s ruling preserves the 2002 statute, which criminalizes threats and false threats of terrorism, and orders the Court of Appeals (COA) to reconsider their ruling under specific questions and considerations from the state Supreme Court. 

Earlier this month Attorney General Nessel filed an amicus brief (PDF) at the Michigan Supreme Court in support of the emergency application filed by the Wayne County Prosecutor to preserve the law. 

Today’s order from the Michigan Supreme Court (PDF) vacated the COA’s judgment, keeping the judgment from affecting current criminal cases, and remanded the case to that Court for further consideration. Specifically, the Court instructed the COA to assess its judgment in light of MCL 750.543z and the Constitutional-Doubt canon. The COA is also ordered to address whether imposing a limiting construction would remedy any constitutional deficiency, what the limiting construction should accomplish, and whether the Wayne County Circuit Court abused its discretion in dismissing the case.  

“The anti-terrorism law is a vital tool for holding accountable those who make serious threats in our state,” Nessel said. “While the case has been remanded for further consideration, I am hopeful that this decision brings us closer to correctly reaffirming the law’s constitutionality and preserving the ability of prosecutors across Michigan to protect public safety.” 

The Court of Appeals had ruled in March that the statute in question is unconstitutional because it does not require proof that the defendant subjectively understood the threatening nature of the statements or acted recklessly when making them. Attorney General Nessel argued to the Michigan Supreme Court in her amicus brief that the Court of Appeals’ decision is clearly erroneous, as prosecutors are already required through the statute to prove charged defendants intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or sought to influence or affect government conduct through intimidation or coercion.