The State School Aid Act (SSAA); Funds earmarked for “school safety & mental health” (MCL 388.1631aa(1)); Amendment conditioning receipt of the funds on the school’s agreeing to waive “any privilege” & comply with a “comprehensive investigation” “in the event of a mass casualty event”; MCL 388.1631aa(9) (the privilege waiver); Constitutional challenges; Void for vagueness; The unconstitutional conditions doctrine; The “Title-Object Clause” (Const 1963, art 4, § 24); The separation of powers

The court held that the amendment to the SSAA conditioning a school’s receipt of funds earmarked for “school safety and mental health” on agreeing to waive “any privilege” and comply with a “comprehensive investigation” “in the event of a mass casualty event” did not violate the Michigan Constitution. Thus, it affirmed the Court of Claims order granting defendants summary disposition. MCL 388.1631aa(9), as amended, contains what the court referred to as the privilege waiver. It first held that the provision was not void for vagueness. Plaintiffs argued “the phrase ‘any privilege’ is unconstitutionally vague because it does not identify which privilege or privileges are to be waived, whether [they] include those held by any individuals, or the duration of the waiver.” But the court concluded that when read in context, “‘any’ is not ambiguous, and it clearly refers only to privileges held by the school or district itself, and it also refers only to privileges related to information pertaining to a particular mass casualty event under investigation.” The statutory language was “clear—only the district or school receiving funds must agree to the waiver.” As to the possibility of being subject to criminal penalties, “if an administrator or employee invokes a privilege in the good-faith belief that they are entitled to invoke that privilege, they are likely not in violation of MCL 388.1761, even if it is ultimately determined that they did not have a right to invoke the privilege.” The court added that the “privilege waiver is further modified by a restrictive clause as the waiver is only applicable ‘in the event of a mass casualty event.’ While no published decision in Michigan has expressly defined the phrase ‘in the event of,’ it has been treated as indicating a conditional occurrence.” MCL 388.1631aa(12)(a) lists four possible circumstances that would qualify as a mass casualty event. Read in context, the statute’s “repeated references to ‘an incident,’ and its reference in subsection (9) to a singular investigation into a singular event, indicate that the Legislature intended for any of those four possibilities to arise.” As to plaintiffs’ unconstitutional conditions doctrine claim, given that “the schools never had any constitutional rights, and because individuals are not subject to direct or indirect waivers of their rights . . . the privilege waiver is not unconstitutionally coercive.” The court also found no violation of the Title-Object Clause or the separation of powers.