Michigan Court of Appeals Upholds Constitutionality of State Anti-Terrorism Threat Law

LANSING – Yesterday, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the constitutionality of Michigan’s anti-terrorism threat law (PDF), announced Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel. The ruling follows a directive by the Michigan Supreme Court, which earlier this year vacated the Court of Appeals’ March decision that had declared the statute unconstitutional. The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration.

“This decision marks a critical victory for public safety,” Nessel said. “It makes clear that those who seek to spread fear and destabilize our communities through threats of terrorism can be held accountable. Our anti-terrorism threat law is a vital tool for my office and county prosecutors across the state, and this ruling ensures we can continue using it to uphold the law and protect the people of Michigan.”

The statute, enacted in 2002, criminalizes threats and false threats of terrorism. In its March decision, the Court of Appeals ruled that the statute 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 then filed an amicus brief at the Michigan Supreme Court in support of the emergency application filed by the Wayne County Prosecutor to preserve the law.  

Attorney General Nessel argued to the Michigan Supreme Court in her amicus brief that the Court of Appeals’ decision was 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. In March, the Michigan Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ judgment, keeping the judgment from affecting current criminal cases, and remanded the case to that Court for further consideration.

The ruling by the Court of Appeals affirms the statute’s constitutionality and clarifies the standard of proof, requiring the prosecution to demonstrate that the defendant recklessly made a threat, the threat involved an act of terrorism, and the threat was communicated to another person.

###