Michigan Senate Unanimously Passes Bill to Strengthen Anti-Terrorism Law After Court Raises Constitutional Questions

Senate Bill 502 Adds Intent Requirement to Terroristic Threatening Charges

The Michigan Senate voted unanimously on March 19 to update the state's anti-terrorism statute, responding to judicial concerns that the current law lacked clarity on what constitutes a threatening statement. Senate Bill 502, introduced by state Sen. Sue Shink and Sen. Rosemary Bayer, both Democrats, would add an intent requirement to make it clear that individuals can only be charged if they knowingly or recklessly make a terrorist threat, rather than based solely on how their statements are perceived.

The legislation now heads to the Michigan House of Representatives for consideration, where it faces an uncertain future in a politically divided chamber.

Court Raises Questions About Current Law

Michigan judges have raised concerns about the state's existing terroristic threatening law in light of federal Supreme Court rulings. The current standard relies on a "reasonable person's" definition of a threat, which courts have questioned for potential constitutional problems.

State Sen. Sue Shink (D-Northfield Township) sponsors the bill and explained the need for the update during the Senate vote.

"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. Without adequate tools, prosecutors can't protect us from people who are making threats and about to take action," Shink said.

The bill clarifies that to be charged with making a terroristic threat, a person must knowingly or recklessly make a threat that would be perceived as such, or knowingly make a false report. This intent requirement addresses concerns raised by the Michigan Court of Appeals about the constitutionality of the current statute.

Defense and Civil Liberties Groups Push for Careful Language

The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the ACLU of Michigan raised concerns about earlier versions of the bill, emphasizing the importance of protecting free speech rights while ensuring prosecutors have adequate tools to respond to genuine threats.

Liz Balck, a policy strategist with the ACLU of Michigan, pushed lawmakers to clarify what "reckless disregard" meant in the legislation.

"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 passed the Senate 35-0 and now must clear the House before it can head to Governor Gretchen Whitmer's desk for final approval.

Recent Events Highlight Need for Updated Law

The timing of the legislation comes amid heightened security concerns in Michigan. On March 12, a targeted attack occurred at Temple Israel in West Bloomfield Township, which federal officials later described as a Hezbollah-inspired act against the Jewish community.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel emphasized the importance of the bill following the Senate vote.

"Michigan's existing anti-terrorism 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," Nessel said. "We cannot allow divided government to weaken our ability to respond to threats of terrorism."

On March 31, a Rochester man was sentenced for threatening a Macomb County Circuit Court Judge, demonstrating the practical application of current anti-terrorism laws in Michigan courts.

House Consideration Looms

The bill now faces its biggest hurdle as it moves to the Michigan House of Representatives. In recent sessions, the House has shown resistance to legislation favored by the Senate, particularly on issues involving criminal justice and civil liberties.

State Sen. Rosemary Bayer (D-Beverly Hills), co-sponsor of the bill, expressed hope that the legislation would pass the House.

"With hate crimes, antisemitism, and extremist threats on the rise, we must do everything we can to keep our communities safe," Bayer said in a press release following the Senate vote.

The bill's fate will ultimately be determined by House Republicans and Democrats as they consider whether to give the Michigan Supreme Court's concerns about the current law's constitutionality enough weight to advance the legislation.