Joshua Wade v. University of Michigan
330555
Mich. Ct. App.Jun 6, 2017Background
- In 2001 the University of Michigan adopted Article X, banning firearms and other weapons on all property owned, leased, or controlled by the Regents, with limited exceptions and a misdemeanor penalty.
- Joshua Wade sought a written waiver under the ordinance; after denial he sued in the Court of Claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging (1) Article X violates the Second Amendment and Michigan Constitution, and (2) Article X is preempted by MCL 123.1102.
- The University moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8), arguing (a) University property is a “sensitive place” outside Second Amendment protection and (b) the University is not a “local unit of government” subject to MCL 123.1102.
- The Court of Claims granted the University’s motion, holding (a) universities are “sensitive places” under Heller and Article X falls outside Second Amendment protection, and (b) MCL 123.1102 applies only to cities, villages, townships, or counties and thus does not preempt the University’s ordinance.
- Wade appealed; the Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and affirmed dismissal of both counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article X violates the Second Amendment | Wade: total firearms ban on campus burdens Second Amendment self-defense rights; university is not a sensitive place | U-M: universities are schools (sensitive places); Heller permits banning firearms in such places | Held: universities were historically understood as schools; Article X regulates a sensitive place and is outside Second Amendment scope; claim fails |
| Whether Article X violates the Michigan Constitution | Wade: (raised below but not pressed on appeal) | U-M: regulation is a reasonable exercise of Regents’ constitutional authority to supervise the institution | Abandoned on appeal; Court did not decide on the state-constitution claim |
| Whether MCL 123.1102 preempts Article X (field preemption) | Wade: Legislature occupied the field of firearms regulation; MCL 123.1102 strips lower governmental entities of authority to regulate firearms | U-M: statute applies only to a “local unit of government” (city, village, township, county); the University is a constitutional corporation/co-equal with the Legislature and not a local unit | Held: MCL 123.1102’s definition limits it to cities, villages, townships, counties; it does not apply to the University, so no preemption |
| If preemption applied, whether Llewellyn factors show complete occupation of the field | Wade: prior cases (e.g., CADL) show field preemption against lower-level entities | U-M: CADL concerned a quasi-municipal library created by municipalities and is not comparable; University autonomy limits legislative interference in its internal governance | Held: even if compared, analysis would not change result here; University is not a lower-level entity subject to CADL-type preemption treatment |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects individual right to possess firearms for self-defense but allows regulations in sensitive places)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (Second Amendment incorporated against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment; reiterates that sensitive-place restrictions are presumptively lawful)
- Ezell v. Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011) (applies historical-understanding test for scope of Second Amendment and explains use of that historical inquiry)
- Federated Publications, Inc. v. Michigan State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 460 Mich. 75 (1999) (describes University Board of Regents as a constitutional corporation with distinct institutional autonomy)
- Capital Area Dist. Library v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc., 298 Mich. App. 220 (2012) (field preemption barred a quasi-municipal library’s weapons policy because the library was a lower-level governmental entity created by municipalities)