Whether a state statute criminalizing alleged 'terrorist threats' violates the First Amendment when applied to political hyperbole made in a public setting without an imminent threat of harm

At a contentious election recount held in Oakland County, Michigan (“County”) on December 15, 2023, Applicant made an offhand comment (“Hang Joe for Treason,” which is political hyperbole as a matter of law), in conversational tone, in a nearempty lobby, outside of the presence of any election official (including Joe Rozell—the Director of Elections for the County and the “Joe” referenced in the comment), that was overheard by a secretary (Ms. Kaitlyn Howard), who was admittedly not a participant in the conversation and who waited before making a report of this statement to the deputy sheriffs at the scene because there was no threat of any imminent harm and she simply didn’t “take kindly” to the use of such language. After Applicant was questioned by a deputy sheriff about the alleged threat (Applicant denied threatening to harm Joe Rozell—he told the deputy he was accusing him of a crime), Applicant was permitted to return to the recount room where Joe Rozell was located, at which time Applicant gave a speech during the public comment period about how he believes that cheating on elections is treason. The County waited nearly four months before bringing the original criminal charge against Applicant for allegedly making a “terrorist threat” in violation of Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.543m. The charge was previously dismissed. And now the County is seeking to reinstate this 20-year felony charge against Applicant for his political comment. The question presented is as follows: Whether Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.543m, facially and as applied to Applicant’s speech, violates the First Amendment.