FAQs

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.

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

On March 28, 2025, the Michigan Supreme Court issued a consequential order in People v. Kvasnicka, directing the Court of Appeals to reconsider its ruling that Michigan’s anti-terrorism statute—MCL 750.543m—violates the First Amendment. The order raises profound questions about the boundaries of protected speech and the state’s power to criminalize communications that may be perceived as threatening.

At Komorn Law, we believe these questions lie at the heart of a constitutional democracy. The First Amendment is not optional—it’s essential. Our firm has long stood as a bulwark against the encroachment of vague and overly broad criminal statutes that chill free expression under the guise of public safety.

The Legal Background

The case centers around MCL 750.543m, Michigan’s anti-terrorism statute, which criminalizes the making of threats and false threats of terrorism. The statute came under fire when the Michigan Court of Appeals found it unconstitutional for failing to require proof that a defendant subjectively knew their statements could be interpreted as threats of violence.

This reasoning echoed the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023), which held that true-threat prosecutions must prove that the speaker had a culpable mental state—such as recklessness—about how their words would be perceived.

Rather than affirming or reversing that ruling outright, the Michigan Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ judgment and sent the case back for a more nuanced analysis. The Court directed the lower court to re-examine the statute in light of:

1. MCL 750.543z, which bars prosecution of conduct “presumptively protected” by the First Amendment;
2. The constitutional-doubt canon, a legal doctrine instructing courts to interpret statutes in a way that avoids constitutional conflict;
3. The possibility of adopting a limiting construction to save the statute from invalidation; and
4. Whether the trial court’s dismissal of the case without prejudice was procedurally improper while an appeal remained pending.

This remand opens the door for Michigan’s judiciary to refine the balance between public safety and individual liberty—especially where political speech, hyperbole, or artistic expression may be misconstrued as threatening.

The State’s Position

Attorney General Dana Nessel, who submitted an amicus brief supporting the Wayne County Prosecutor, celebrated the high court’s ruling as a preservation of an “important public safety tool.” Her office argued that the statute already requires proof of intent to intimidate or coerce, thereby satisfying constitutional standards. But the Supreme Court did not endorse that view outright—leaving the Court of Appeals with a mandate to dig deeper.

Free speech isn’t free if fear of prosecution suppresses lawful expression.

Why This Matters 

Free speech isn’t free if fear of prosecution suppresses lawful expression. Vague laws that do not distinguish between actual threats and controversial, political, or even offensive speech risk turning our criminal courts into censors. This case—while still developing—has the potential to shape how Michigan protects or prosecutes speech going forward.

Komorn Law

At Komorn Law, we understand the stakes. We have represented clients whose words were taken out of context, misunderstood, or weaponized by the state under overbroad statutes. We fight to ensure that criminal charges do not become a substitute for political disagreement or public discomfort.

If you or someone you know is facing prosecution for speech-related conduct—whether online or off—we are here to defend your rights with constitutional precision and fearless advocacy.

See links and info below to court cases and laws here

1. Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023)

(Held that “true threats” prosecutions require proof that the speaker was at least reckless regarding whether their statements would be interpreted as threatening.)

2. MCL 750.543m – Michigan Anti-Terrorism Statute

(Defines criminal penalties for threats or false threats of terrorism in Michigan.)

3. MCL 750.543z – Free Speech Protection Clause

(Prohibits prosecution or seizure for conduct presumptively protected under the First Amendment.)

4. Sole v. Michigan Economic Development Corp., 509 Mich 406 (2022)

(Applies the constitutional-doubt canon: statutes should be interpreted to avoid constitutional conflicts.)

5. People v. Burkman, 513 Mich 300 (2024)

(Addresses how courts may apply limiting constructions to save statutes from constitutional invalidation.)

6. Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990)

(Permits courts to narrowly construe statutes to avoid infringing on constitutional rights.)

7. People v. Scott, 513 Mich 180 (2024)

(Discusses abuse of discretion when trial courts act on matters under interlocutory appeal.)