Michigan Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to University of Michigan’s Gun Ban

University of Michigan campus police in Ann Arbor, Mich., in an undated file photograph. Mike Householder/AP Photo

The University of Michigan’s ban on guns, which applies even to individuals with a permit to carry a concealed weapon, will stand after Michigan’s top court declined to hear an appeal from a man who said the policy violates the Constitution.

“We are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court,” a majority of Michigan Supreme Court justices said on Oct. 18 as they rejected an appeal of a lower court ruling that found the University of Michigan’s gun ban does not violate the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment because schools such as the university are sensitive places.

Justice David Viviano dissented.

The campuswide ban “raises serious questions concerning the Second Amendment,” he wrote.

The Michigan Court of Appeals in 2023 upheld the ban, known as Article X. While Joshua Wade, a resident who sued over the ban, has Second Amendment rights, the ban fits into a sensitive place exception outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court, the court ruled.

“We conclude that the University is a school, and thus, a sensitive place. Therefore, Article X is constitutionally permissible because laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places are consistent with the Second Amendment,” Judges Mark J. Cavanagh and Deborah A. Servitto wrote at the time.

“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,” they added later.

The judges pointed to a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling known as Bruen in which the court said that restricting guns in sensitive places was allowed. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, also said that courts must analyze whether there is a historical basis for restrictions even for sensitive places.

“In this case, the Court of Appeals failed to perform the Second Amendment analysis required by the Supreme Court. Instead, the Court of Appeals misinterpreted Second Amendment caselaw and created its own complex, multifactor test that is not grounded in the text of the Second Amendment or the Supreme Court’s caselaw interpreting it,” Viviano said. “By denying leave to appeal, the majority simply looks the other way. As a result, plaintiff’s colorable claims that the University violated his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms have never been properly analyzed by any court. I would grant plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal in order to perform the correct legal analysis and to provide clarity following Bruen.”

Justice Brian K. Zahra joined in the dissent. Justice Richard H. Bernstein did not participate.

The rest of the justices formed the majority.