The Michigan Court of Appeals has issued a significant ruling, upholding the constitutionality of the state’s anti-hazing statute, Garret’s Law, in a case stemming from a fatal incident at a Michigan State University (MSU) fraternity.
In a decision published Monday, the court affirmed the lower court’s decision to send the case against former Pi Alpha Phi fraternity “pledge master” Ethan Tin Cao to trial. Cao is charged under Garret’s Law in connection with the death of one pledge, Phat Nguyen, and the severe injury of three others due to acute alcohol toxicity at a November 2021 “crossover” party.
The ruling marks the first time a Michigan appellate court has addressed the anti-hazing law, which was enacted in 2004.
Constitutional Challenges Rejected
Cao, who was described by witnesses as the “authoritative figure of the entire process,” challenged the law on multiple constitutional grounds. Writing for the court, Judge Ackerman rejected all arguments, affirming the statute’s legality:
- Freedom of Association: The court ruled that the First Amendment right to association does not extend to conduct that “deliberately or recklessly endangers the physical health or safety of current or prospective members.” The law is narrowly tailored to prevent harm.
- Equal Protection: Cao argued the law improperly exempts “normal and customary” activities in sanctioned athletic or military programs. The court applied a rational basis review, finding the distinction acceptable because these programs serve legitimate purposes and are subject to institutional oversight.
- Vagueness and Overbreadth: The court rejected the claim that terms like “reckless act” or “endanger the physical health or safety” are too vague. It joined a consensus of other states in holding that a person of ordinary intelligence can understand what anti-hazing statutes prohibit, noting that many criminal laws use similar terms. The fact that the law bans hazing even with a victim’s consent was also upheld.
Probable Cause Found for Hazing Charges
The court also found that the district court had sufficient evidence to establish probable cause to bind the case over for trial…