Michigan Senate Passes Anti-Terrorism Bill to Clarify Threat Standards

Michigan's Senate unanimously approved a new law on March 19 that would clarify when speech can be prosecuted as a terroristic threat, addressing constitutional concerns raised by courts and legal experts about the state's existing statute.

The legislation, Senate Bill 502, introduces an intent requirement that prosecutors must prove before charging someone with making a terroristic threat. Under the new law, individuals can only be charged if they knowingly make a threat, recklessly disregard whether their words would be perceived as threatening, or knowingly make a false report about a threat.

Michigan's current anti-terrorism law relies on what courts call a "reasonable person" standard — essentially asking whether a threat would scare an ordinary person. But Michigan judges have questioned whether this standard violated free speech protections in light of U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

"The existing law has saved lives and has been instrumental in prosecuting threats against schools, law enforcement, judicial officers and elected officials on both sides of the aisle," said Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel in a statement. "We cannot allow divided government to weaken our ability to respond to threats of terrorism, and I implore the House of Representatives to pass this bill urgently into law."

State Senator Sue Shink, the bill's sponsor, said the legislation gives prosecutors better tools to protect Michigan residents from those who make threats of violence.

"A lot of times a person will make a threat before they actually take action. And so, these threats need to be taken seriously and the people who are making these threats need to be taken seriously," Shink said. "Without adequate tools, prosecutors can't protect us from people who are making threats and about to take action."

The bill passed the Senate 35-0. It now moves to the Michigan House of Representatives for consideration.

Legal groups raised concerns about the legislation's impact on free speech. Liz Balck, a policy strategist with the ACLU of Michigan, pushed lawmakers to clarify what "reckless disregard" meant in the bill.

"Prosecutors, they have to prove that the defendant really, consciously, disregarded that risk to communicate threatening violence versus just saying something in a joking manner, an inappropriate context, or hyperbole," Balck said.

The bill comes after the Michigan Court of Appeals raised questions about the state's existing anti-terrorism statute, which limited prosecutors' ability to pursue certain cases. The legislation was also passed in the wake of the March 12 attack on Temple Israel in West Bloomfield Township, which federal officials later described as a targeted, Hezbollah-inspired act against the Jewish community.

The bill now heads to the state House, where it will face Republican opposition. Michigan Republicans control the House while Democrats control the Senate.