By Ben Solis
Gongwer News Service

The Michigan Supreme Court on Friday expressed no opinion on whether the state’s terrorist threat statute was unconstitutional, but it did kick the case back on remand to the Court of Appeals and vacated an earlier holding that that statute violated free speech protections.

In an unsigned order, the high court in People v. Kvasnicka (MSC Docket No. 16818) remanded the case for further consideration. The bench ordered the appellate panel to address the proper interpretation of the statute in light of one its subsections, which provides that a prosecuting agency shall not prosecute any person or seize any property for conduct presumptively protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in a manner that violates any constitutional provision; and in light of the judiciary’s constitutional-doubt canon.

The appellate panel was also ordered to reconsider whether it was appropriate to adopt a limiting construction of the statute to remedy any remaining constitutional deficiency, and if so, what that construction should be. It was further asked to determine whether the Wayne Circuit Court abused its discretion by dismissing the case without prejudice, when doing so necessarily implicated aspects of the case on interlocutory appeal.

Kvasnicka was appealed by Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy, who argued the unanimous published opinion erred because a statute is presumed constitutional upon appeal, with the duty of a reviewing court being to adopt any statutory construction other than one that renders it unconstitutional if that construction is “fairly possible.”

Attorney General Dana Nessel filed an amicus brief with the high court in support of Worthy’s position.

Nessel in a statement released Friday praised the high court’s decision to vacate the prior ruling and remand for further consideration.

“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.”

headlines Detroit

• Michigan Law alumni clerk for Constitutional Court of South Africa
• McMorrow announces Democratic bid for US Senate
• Kerr Russell and Barris Sott combine, resulting firm has more than 60 attorneys
• The SAVE Act would be the worst voting law in U.S. history.
• Daily Briefs

headlines National

• ACLU and BigLaw firm use ‘Orange is the New Black’ in hashtag effort to promote NY jail reform
• Judge accused of using ‘game or jail’ tactic, asserting abuse victims get ‘Super Bowl’ neurochemicals
• Prosecutor gets suspension for invading jury’s ‘inner sanctum’
• Lateral hiring bounced back in 2024, especially for associates in BigLaw, new NALP report says
• Refugee ban can’t be enforced against those who received conditional approval, 9th Circuit says
• ABA, more than 50 bar associations condemn ‘government actions that seek to twist the scales of justice’