A Michigan court just blew a hole in a headline-making “terrorism” case by saying kidnapping is not a violent felony under the state’s anti-terror law.
Story Snapshot
- Michigan Court of Appeals vacated Joseph Morrison’s terrorism-related convictions tied to the Whitmer kidnap plot [8].
- The court said kidnapping does not qualify as a “violent felony” under Michigan’s anti-terror statute [8].
- The ruling orders a new trial or further action that follows the law’s text, not headlines [8].
- Media and lawmakers reacted fast, but the opinion turns on statute language, not new facts [3].
Court Ruling Centers On The Text Of Michigan’s Anti-Terror Law
Michigan Court of Appeals judges vacated all of Joseph Morrison’s terrorism-related convictions on June 9, 2026. The panel ruled that prosecutors let jurors rely on kidnapping as the needed “violent felony,” but Michigan’s law no longer treats kidnapping that way. The court cited the statute’s elements and said the jury instructions were wrong. The case now goes back for action that matches the law’s words, not a broad view of violence [8].
News outlets reported that the decision affects Morrison alone among the defendants tied to the 2020 Whitmer plot. Reports explained he had been serving time for providing material support for a terrorist act, among other counts, until this ruling. The core change is legal, not factual. The court did not say nothing bad happened. It said the law’s definition controls which crimes can serve as the terror predicate, and kidnapping does not fit that box [3].
Why Kidnapping No Longer Counts As The Predicate “Violent Felony”
The appeals court walked through Michigan’s statute and focused on elements, not labels. Lawmakers had changed kidnapping years ago, removing the force element that once made it qualify as a violent felony. Prosecutors still used kidnapping to anchor the terror charge. The court said that was an error. Jurors needed a predicate offense that the law itself lists or that meets the “violent felony” definition as written today. Kidnapping does not meet it now [8].
This is a classic boundary-policing role for appellate courts. Trial courts hear facts and apply broad ideas; appeals courts check the statute line by line. Here, the panel said the jury’s path to a terrorism-related verdict was legally open when it should have been closed. That does not clear Morrison of every wrong. It says the state must charge and instruct under the exact law the legislature wrote, not under a common-sense label of “violent” that the statute does not support [8].
What Gets Vacated And What Comes Next In The Case
The opinion vacated the terrorism-related convictions and sent the case back. The court’s order allows the state to retry or revise charges only if they can rest on a correct predicate offense. That means any future trial must use a qualifying “violent felony” or a listed offense the statute allows. If prosecutors cannot supply that legal anchor, the terrorism-support theory fails under the court’s reading of state law [8].
Coverage noted Morrison was one of several men charged in the broader Whitmer plot cases, which saw mixed results across courts. Some defendants pleaded guilty. Others were acquitted. Morrison’s case is distinct because of the narrow legal issue the panel decided. It turns on what the anti-terror statute means today, not on whether talk of kidnapping took place in 2020. That is why the ruling applies to him and his specific convictions now vacated [5].
How Politicians And Media Framed The Decision
Michigan outlets quickly announced the reversal, highlighting that the terrorism-related convictions were tossed and the case sent back. Reports stressed that only Morrison’s verdicts were at issue in this appeal and that the ruling hinged on legal definitions. The speed of reaction was high, but the heart of the decision was dry statutory analysis. It was not a new fact, witness, or tape. It was the plain text of the law and how jurors were instructed [1].
The conviction of Joseph Morrison, accused of providing aid to an informant-swarmed plot to kidnap Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer, has been overturned.https://t.co/G3JCh5gGfh
— Ford Fischer (@FordFischer) June 9, 2026
State political figures also weighed in, drawing sharp lines in public statements. But the court did not engage those arguments. It focused on the legislature’s words and the doctrine that criminal statutes must be followed as written. For readers, the key lesson is simple. Labels like “terrorism” carry weight, but they still must tie to the exact elements lawmakers set. When they do not, convictions cannot stand, even in high-profile cases [4].
Why This Matters For Rights, Fair Trials, And Future Cases
This ruling protects due process and the rule of law. Prosecutors cannot stretch statutes past their elements, even when the facts sound scary. Courts must enforce what the legislature wrote, not what headlines want. That restraint guards every citizen, left or right, from government overreach. It also pushes lawmakers to fix gaps the right way, by amending the statute in public, not by letting agencies or courts smuggle in extra words after the fact [8].
Sources:
[1] Web – Michigan Appeals Court Vacates Convictions Against Joseph Morrison Who …
[3] X – A state appeals court Tuesday vacated the terrorism-related …
[4] YouTube – Man has Michigan Governor kidnapping plot conviction overturned
[5] Web – House Democratic Leadership on Ruling to Vacate Kidnap Plot …
[8] YouTube – US Supreme Court declines to hear case of man convicted in …