Macomb Intermediate School District and allied districts asked a judge in the Michigan Court of Claims on Tuesday to strike a phrase in Public Act 15 of 2025 that requires districts "to waive any privilege that may otherwise protect information from disclosure in the event of a mass casualty event," arguing the language is so vague and broad that administrators cannot know what rights they are surrendering.

"To receive funding under this section, a district ... must affirmatively agree to waive any privilege that may otherwise protect information from disclosure in the event of a mass casualty event," plaintiff attorney Scott Eldridge read to the court and said the absence of definitions and temporal limits makes the clause "void for vagueness." Eldridge told the court the language could sweep in attorney-client and work-product protections and leave school officials exposed to criminal penalties under section 161 of the School Aid Act.

Why it matters: Eldridge said the provision forces school officials either to decline funding for safety and mental-health programs or accept uncertain legal risk. "This language effectively coerces school officials to waive any privilege in any limitless number of contexts," he said, noting roughly 40 named school-district plaintiffs and nearly 200 districts that filed amicus briefs supporting the challenge.

The plaintiffs advanced three constitutional theories. First, under the void-for-vagueness doctrine they said the statute fails to give fair notice to administrators about what conduct or communications are covered. Second, they invoked the unconstitutional-condition doctrine, arguing the state cannot condition funding on the relinquishment of constitutional protections. Third, they said the waiver intrudes on the judiciary by removing gatekeeping over judge-made privileges such as attorney-client and work-product protections.

State attorneys countered that the challenge is a facial one and difficult to sustain absent enforcement history. "Facial challenges are tricky," said Adam DeBaer for the State, urging the court to construe the statute as tied to the comprehensive-investigation authority in the same statutory section and to regard the waiver as germane to the appropriation's safety purpose. DeBaer said school districts can only waive the privileges they hold and that individuals retain personal constitutional protections.

Michigan Department of Education attorney Toni Harris told the court MDE will "administer the statute as it's been interpreted by the court" and is not taking a policy position, and she opposed plaintiffs' request to change the parties' stipulated rescission deadline for opting out (the parties had set December 30). Harris said the rescission deadline and related terms were negotiated by the parties and incorporated in the stipulated facts and order.

During argument the plaintiffs highlighted how the statute defines "mass casualty event" through four broad subparts (including "significant injuries to not fewer than three individuals" and "an incident resulting in fatalities"), offering hypotheticals from bus accidents to food poisoning and athletic concussions to show how ordinary incidents could trigger the clause. The state responded that certain triggers (for example, fatalities or attacks) plainly fall within the purpose of the appropriation and that judicial construction can narrow ambiguities in practice.

No ruling was issued at the hearing. The judge said she would issue an opinion "as soon as practicable." The cross-motions for summary disposition remain pending.

Quotes from the hearing:
"Must affirmatively agree to waive any privilege that may otherwise protect information from disclosure in the event of a mass casualty event," Scott Eldridge (plaintiffs' counsel).
"Facial challenges are tricky, particularly when there's never been any enforcement of the statute," Adam DeBaer (state counsel).
"MDE will administer the statute as it's been interpreted by the court. They don't take a position on it being good or bad," Toni Harris (MDE counsel).

What happens next: The court will issue a written opinion on the cross-motions for summary disposition. Either party may appeal the court's ruling following entry of judgment.