Appeals Court Upholds University Of Michigan’s Campus Firearm Ban
The University of Michigan “is a school, and thus, a sensitive place” and, as a result, the University’s ordinance prohibiting firearms on school property does not violate the Second Amendment, the Michigan Court of Claims has ruled.
In Wade v University of Michigan (Docket No. 330555), the plaintiff claimed the University of Michigan’s ordinance prohibiting firearms on school property was unconstitutional and violated the Second Amendment. In 2017, the Court of Claims dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the ordinance. The plaintiff appealed that decision to the Michigan Supreme Court. In November 2022, the high court vacated the Court of Claims decision (Docket No. 156150) and remanded the case for consideration in light of NY State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc v Bruen, ___ US ___ (2022).
The U.S. Supreme Court in Bruen held that New York’s requirement that an applicant for an unrestricted license to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense runs afoul of the Second Amendment. According to the Court, the Second Amendment protects a right that extends beyond the home. The Court also said the appropriate test for evaluating Second Amendment challenges to firearms laws is a text-based approach and the “historical tradition” of firearms regulation.
Examining the present case in light of Bruen, the Court of Claims again ruled that the plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed.
“Clearly, the efficacy of gun bans as a public safety measure is a matter of debate,” the Court of Claims wrote. “However, because the University is a school, and thus a sensitive place, it is up to the policy-maker - the University in this case - to determine how to address that public safety concern.”
Court of Claims Judges Mark J. Cavanagh and Deborah Servitto joined the published opinion. Judge David H. Sawyer, who sat on the panel that decided the case in 2017, did not participate because he has since retired.
Sensitive Place
The plaintiff maintained the University’s ordinance violated the Second Amendment under Bruen. “We disagree,” the Court of Claims said in a 14-page opinion.
According to the Court of Claims, “[t]he following framework for resolving Second Amendment challenges can be gleaned from Bruen:
Courts must first consider whether the Second Amendment presumptively protects the conduct at issue. If not, the inquiry ends and the regulation does not violate the Second Amendment. …
If the conduct at issue is presumptively protected, courts must then consider whether the regulation at issue involves a traditional ‘sensitive place.’ If so, then it is settled that a prohibition on arms carrying is consistent with the Second Amendment.
If the regulation does not involve a traditional ‘sensitive place,’ courts can use historical analogies to determine whether the regulation prohibits the carry of firearms in a new and analogous ‘sensitive place.’ If the regulation involves a new ‘sensitive place,’ then the regulation does not violate the Second Amendment.
If the regulation does not involve a sensitive place, then courts must consider whether the government has demonstrated that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulations. This inquiry will often involve reasoning by analogy to consider whether regulations are relevantly similar under the Second Amendment. If the case involves ‘unprecedented societal concerns or dramatic technological changes,’ then a ‘more nuanced approach’ may be required.”
Here, the plaintiff’s conduct is “presumptively protected” by the Second Amendment, the Court of Claims observed. Therefore, the defendant “has the burden to show that [the ordinance] … involves a traditional ‘sensitive place.’”
The Court of Claims continued by examining whether the University is a “school” or “government building.” The plaintiff argued that while “some specific parts” of the University’s campus may be considered “sensitive areas,” the entire campus is not a “sensitive area.”
The Court of Claims rejected the plaintiff’s argument as “untenable” because it would require that certain areas of the school be “partitioned off” from other areas and that other “sensitive places,” such as courthouses, would similarly have to be partitioned. “More importantly, plaintiff provides no support for partitioning ‘sensitive areas’ and no such support can be found in … Bruen, which used the term ‘schools’ and ‘government buildings’ broadly.”
Accordingly, under the analytical framework in Bruen, “we first conclude that plaintiff’s conduct is presumptively protected by the Second Amendment,” the Court of Claims said. “Second, we conclude that the University is a school, and thus, a sensitive place. Therefore, [the ordinance] is constitutionally permissible because laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places are consistent with the Second Amendment. … In other words, [the ordinance] does not violate the Second Amendment.”
Therefore, “the trial court properly granted the University’s motion for summary disposition,” the Court of Claims said.
At the end of its opinion, the Court of Claims acknowledged that the parties, as well as the various amicus curiae, offered policy arguments both in support of and against the ordinance.
“In brief, the University argues that, in addition to public safety concerns, the presence of firearms works against its important goals of protecting First Amendment freedoms and the free flow of information,” the Court of Claims wrote. “The Michigan Attorney General argues that … courts should not interfere with state and local decisions; university students believe learning is hampered if firearms are permitted on campus; and the University would be an outlier among colleges and universities if its ordinance were struck down.”
Meanwhile, the Court of Claims noted that other amicus curiae argued the University’s ordinance “protects speech and the free exchange of ideas and furthers the University’s core educational goals,” guns on campus “chill speech, impede learning, and pose unique safety risks” and “there is no evidence that the presence of guns would decrease mass shootings.”
On the other hand, the plaintiff asserted that “guns increase public safety,” the Court of Claims said. The plaintiff “further argues that the concerns regarding violence, suicide, and alcohol abuse may relate to students, but not to him, and the free flow of information is not a concern at the places of his proposed conduct. [Gun Owners of America, Inc.] similarly argues [in its amicus brief] that [the ordinance] is far too broad, potentially affecting more than 88,000 people and effectively operating as a city-wide ban, which is impermissible.”
The Court of Claims concluded, “Clearly, the efficacy of gun bans as a public safety measure is a matter of debate. However, because the University is a school, and thus a sensitive place, it is up to the policy-maker - the University in this case - to determine how to address that public safety concern.”
