threatening speech | Fraser Blog

Five Stories That Matter in Michigan This Week – October 13, 2023

Cannabis Regulatory Agency Seeks to Update Michigan’s Marihuana Rules

The Michigan Cannabis Regulatory Agency (“CRA”) recently filed a Request for Rulemaking to begin the process of updating Michigan’s Marihuana Rules. The CRA is asking for feedback—comments or suggestions can be sent to CRA-AdminRules@michigan.gov.

Why it Matters: The proposed updates, a summary of which can be found here, would impact licensing, social equity, financial compliance, and a host of other issues.

———

Client Alert: October 14 Deadline: Medicare Part D Notice of Creditable (or Non-Creditable) Coverage

Medicare Part D notices (of either creditable or non-creditable coverage) are due for distribution prior to October 15th.

Why it Matters: With respect to group health plans including prescription coverage offered by an employer to any Medicare Part D eligible employees (whether or not retired) or to Medicare Part D Medicare-eligible spouses or dependents, the employer must provide those individuals with a Notice of Creditable or Non-Creditable Coverage to advise them whether the drug plan’s total gross value is at least as valuable as the standard Part D coverage (i.e., creditable). Read more from your Fraser Trebilcock attorney.

———

Michigan Cannabis Sales Exceed $274 Million in September

Cannabis sales surpassed $274 million in September, via the monthly report from the Michigan Cannabis Regulatory Agency. Michigan adult-use sales came in at $269,813,092.72, while medical sales came in at $4,915,502.78, totaling $274,728,595.50.

Why it Matters: Marijuana sales remain strong in Michigan, particularly for recreational use. However, there still are significant concerns about profitability and market oversaturation that the industry is contending with.

———

U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Legal Standard for Threatening Speech in Counterman V. Colorado

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Counterman v. Colorado addressed the longstanding ambiguity surrounding the standards for criminal prosecution based on perceived threats of violence.

Why it Matters: The Court held that such a prosecution requires proof that the defendant subjectively understood the threatening nature of the statement such that making the statement was at least reckless. This case not only delves deep into First Amendment protections but also has broad implications for online communications and interactions. Read more from your Fraser Trebilcock attorney.

———

Business Education Series – Maximizing Productivity: Strategies for More Effective Workdays

Productivity is a habit and it’s something you can become better at every day by choosing the methods and tricks that work for you.

Why it Matters: In the October Business Education Series program, Emmie Musser, Future of Work Strategist with TechSmith, is going to discuss some tried-and-true strategies for more productive and effective workdays. Learn more.

Related Practice Groups and Professionals

Cannabis Law | Sean Gallagher
Employee Benefits | Bob Burgee
Employee Benefits | Sharon Goldzweig
Criminal Law | Paula Spicer

Five Stories That Matter in Michigan This Week – October 6, 2023

House Bills Would Allow Students Access to Medical Marijuana on School Grounds

“Jayden’s Law,” Michigan House Bills 5063 and 5064, would apply only to non-smokable medical marijuana. It would allow both public and private schools to administer medical cannabis on school grounds, subject to certain requirements, including a written treatment plan provided by the child’s caregiver, supervised administration by a designated staff member, and annual proof of the students’ medical marijuana cards.

Why it Matters: Michigan has allowed minors to access medical marijuana as registered patients for more than a decade. Such use, however, is prohibited while at school or school events. Backers of the legislation argue that students who use medical marijuana but must check out and back into school to do so, miss classroom instructions or extracurricular activities.

———

U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Legal Standard for Threatening Speech in Counterman V. Colorado

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Counterman v. Colorado addressed the longstanding ambiguity surrounding the standards for criminal prosecution based on perceived threats of violence.

Why it Matters: The Court held that such a prosecution requires proof that the defendant subjectively understood the threatening nature of the statement such that making the statement was at least reckless. This case not only delves deep into First Amendment protections but also has broad implications for online communications and interactions. Read more from your Fraser Trebilcock attorney.

———

Fraser Trebilcock Attorney Thaddeus Morgan Selected to Serve on State Bar of Michigan’s U.S. Courts Committee

Fraser Trebilcock attorney Thaddues Morgan was selected to serve on the State Bar of Michigan’s U.S. Courts Committee for the 2023-24 Bar Year. Attorney volunteers are vital for the State Bar to continue providing exceptional service to the legal profession, the public, and the state.

Why it Matters: The State Bar of Michigan’s U.S. Courts Committee provides advice and recommendations concerning the State Bar’s interaction with federal courts in Michigan and on practice of law in those courts. Learn more.

———

Employee Benefits Attorney

Fraser Trebilcock is seeking applications for a position in our Firm from well-qualified attorneys with strong experience in employee benefits, including employer sponsored retirement plans, employee health plans and general ERISA compliance.

Why it Matters: The successful candidate should have a solid and portable client base. Fraser will consider candidates who may lack a portable client base provided they have a solid background in these practice areas and demonstrate an aptitude for client service and growth. Learn more and to apply.

———

Business Education Series – Maximizing Productivity: Strategies for More Effective Workdays

Productivity is a habit and it’s something you can become better at every day by choosing the methods and tricks that work for you.

Related Practice Groups and Professionals

Cannabis Law | Sean Gallagher
Criminal Law | Paula Spicer
Litigation | Thaddeus Morgan

U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Legal Standard for Threatening Speech in Counterman v. Colorado

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Counterman v. Colorado addressed the longstanding ambiguity surrounding the standards for criminal prosecution based on perceived threats of violence. The Court held that such a prosecution requires proof that the defendant subjectively understood the threatening nature of the statement such that making the statement was at least reckless. This case not only delves deep into First Amendment protections but also has broad implications for online communications and interactions.

In this case, Billy Counterman, the criminal defendant, sent numerous unwelcome messages via Facebook to a local musician, raising questions about the delicate balance between free speech and threatening conduct. After multiple block attempts by the musician, Counterman continued his messages from different accounts, leading the musician to believe she was under surveillance and in potential danger.

Colorado prosecutors charged Counterman solely based on his Facebook interactions, asserting that his messages transcended the bounds of protected speech under the First Amendment. Counterman contended that his messages were not “true threats,” arguing that he lacked a subjective understanding of their threatening nature. The lower courts, relying on an objective reasonableness standard, rejected this assertion, deeming the messages as unlawful threats.

The Supreme Court, however, overturned the lower courts’ decisions, opining that while “true threats of violence” are not shielded by the First Amendment, establishing whether a statement is a true threat necessitates a subjective test. The Court emphasized that an objective standard could potentially stifle legitimate speech. A subjective analysis is therefore crucial to reconcile the tension between safeguarding speech and enabling lawful prosecution for illicit expressions.

The ruling specified the requisite intent prosecutors must establish, decreeing that they must demonstrate that defendants made threatening statements recklessly, by ignoring a substantial risk of their statements being perceived as genuine threats.

Justice Kagan, writing for the majority, acknowledged that the balance the Court struck is an imperfect one. As she explained, “[a]s with any balance, something is lost on both sides: The rule we adopt today is neither the most speech-protective nor the most sensitive to the dangers of true threats. But in declining one of those two alternative paths,” she continued, “something more important is gained: Not ‘having it all’ — because that is impossible — but having much of what is important on both sides of the scale.”

This alert serves as a general summary and does not constitute legal guidance. Please contact us with any specific questions.

Paula Spicer is an attorney with Fraser Trebilcock with expertise in family law, juvenile justice law, mental health law, neurological disorders, and specialized “state of mind” defenses in criminal law. You can reach her at (517) 377-0823 or at pspicer@fraserlawfirm.com.