Michigan's Anti-Terrorism Law May Not Be Constitutional

(Source: MIRS.news, Published 11/10/2025) Attorney General Dana Nessel is urging lawmakers to update Michigan's anti-terrorism threat law after a recent court challenge raised questions about the statute's constitutionality.

Last week in a Senate committee, Nessel supported Sen. Sue Shink (D-Dexter)'s SB 502, which makes it clear that a person who utters an arguably violent statement with "reckless disregard of the substantial risk" it carries can be found guilty of a 20-year, $20,000 felony for making a "terrorism threat."

The legislation follows the 2023 case of Michael Joseph Kvasnicka, then 23, of Grosse Ile, who was charged after telling a girl on TikTok that she "wouldn’t be laughing once I come to your school and shoot it up or blow it up like Columbine." Kvasnicka argued the law violated his First Amendment rights because it did not require prosecutors to prove he acted with reckless intent.

In February, a Michigan Court of Appeals panel agreed, ruling the statute unconstitutional because it lacked that recklessness standard. The Michigan Supreme Court later paused that decision and directed the appeals court to review the case again. In July, the appeals panel reversed course and upheld the statute — but said prosecutors must prove reckless intent.

Nessel told lawmakers that the courts signaled it is the Legislature's responsibility to make that reckless intent requirement explicit in state law.

"This is the court making this request to you," Nessel said. "Without a sound legal basis, we risk losing the only statute that allows prosecutors to bring meaningful charges in response to the many threats we are seeing."

She said her office is currently handling six active terrorism threat cases and investigating three more, involving threats against churches, judges, prosecutors and the Governor. Without an update like SB 502, she said, the statute will remain vulnerable to future court challenges.

Opponents of the bill, including the ACLU of Michigan and the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan, argued lawmakers should wait for the Michigan Supreme Court to rule definitively. John Shea, speaking on behalf of defense attorneys, said the appeals court has already determined the law is constitutional as long as recklessness is proven — and lawmakers risk passing a bill that could conflict with an upcoming Supreme Court decision.

"Let's wait and see what the Michigan Supreme Court does, so you don't have to do this twice," Shea told the Senate Civil Rights, Judiciary and Public Safety Committee.

Sen. Jim Runestad (R-White Lake) questioned why the committee was taking action now if the Supreme Court could ultimately reshape the legal standard.

Past attempts to revise Michigan's threat statute have come from Republicans who argued the law was too broad. In 2019, a Lake Superior State University student was charged after posting a photo of his rifle on Snapchat with a caption referencing "snowflakes." Former Rep. John Reilly (R-Oakland Township) and others said that case illustrated the need to distinguish real threats from sarcasm, jokes or protected speech.

The committee heard testimony on SB 502 on Nov. 6 but has not yet voted on the bill.

MIRS - is Michigan's leading capitol news and legislative tracking service. Voted best capitol coverage by lawmakers, staff, lobbyists and associations 20 years running. To learn more, visit us at home.mirs.news