918 N.W.2d 756
Mich.2018Background
- Two Michigan school districts (Ann Arbor and Clio) adopted policies banning firearms on school property but exempting concealed pistol license (CPL) holders from concealed carry restrictions.
- Plaintiffs (gun-rights advocacy groups and parents) sued, arguing state law preempts the districts' bans by implication; lower courts and the Court of Appeals split on the issue.
- The Michigan Supreme Court consolidated the cases to decide whether state law preempts school firearm policies and whether Llewellyn factors must be applied in light of MCL 123.1102.
- The Court reviewed preemption de novo and focused primarily on implied preemption (field preemption), because no express preemption of school districts appeared in the statutes cited.
- The majority concluded the statutory scheme (MCL 123.1101–.1102) expressly preempts certain local units but omits school districts, implying the Legislature did not intend to occupy the field as to school districts; therefore field preemption does not apply.
- The Court declined to reach conflict-preemption arguments because plaintiffs abandoned that theory in their applications and at oral argument; a dissent argued school policies conflict with state statutes (notably MCL 750.237a and MCL 28.425o) and would invalidate the policies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state law expressly preempts school districts from regulating firearms | Plaintiffs: State law occupies field or otherwise preempts local bans | Districts: MCL 123.1102 preempts listed local governments but omits school districts, so no express preemption | Held: No express preemption; statute lists specific local units and excludes school districts, implying no express preemption |
| Whether the Legislature impliedly occupied the field of firearms regulation (field preemption) | Plaintiffs: Comprehensive state scheme implies occupation of field, precluding district policies | Districts: Exclusion of school districts from MCL 123.1101(b) shows legislative intent not to occupy the field for schools | Held: Not field-preempted; where statute unambiguously limits preemption to certain local units, Llewellyn factors need not apply and implied field preemption is defeated |
| Whether local school policies conflict with state statutes permitting CPL holders to carry (conflict preemption) | Plaintiffs (later/brief): Statutes (MCL 750.237a and MCL 28.425o) together permit CPL holders to openly carry on school property, so policies conflict | Districts: CPL statutes limit concealed carry; criminal statutes create exemptions from penalty but do not expressly authorize open carry that would preempt local regulation | Held: Court declined to decide conflict preemption (plaintiffs abandoned argument); split in opinions as to statutory interpretation left conflict issue unresolved |
| Whether courts should resolve conflict-preemption issue sua sponte when parties decline to brief it | Dissent: Court should reach and decide conflict/preemption issue because it is necessary to resolve ultimate dispute | Majority: Decline to decide unbriefed theory; adhere to party presentation principles | Held: Majority refused to reach unpresented conflict argument; some justices would have granted full review |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Llewellyn, 401 Mich. 314 (Mich. 1977) (framework for implied field preemption analysis)
- Capital Area Dist. Library v. Mich. Open Carry, Inc., 298 Mich. App. 220 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (Court of Appeals decision on local firearms regulation referenced and partially overruled on preemption reasoning)
- Detroit v. Qualls, 434 Mich. 340 (Mich. 1990) (rejects the notion that a statutory omission implies an affirmative permission that preempts local regulation)
- Builders Ass'n v. Detroit, 295 Mich. 272 (Mich. 1940) (municipal ordinance invalid where it prohibits conduct the statute expressly permits)
- Nat'l Amusement Co. v. Johnson, 270 Mich. 613 (Mich. 1935) (statute that conditions legality on compliance may permit conduct despite local bans)
- Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming, 495 Mich. 1 (Mich. 2014) (preemption issues are questions of statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)