In People of the State of Michigan v. Connolly, (MI App., May 30, 2024), a Michigan state appellate court upheld convictions of four anti-abortion activists. Defendants had conducted a "red rose" rescue-- entering an abortion clinic, handing each client in the waiting room a rose and attempting to convince them not to proceed with abortions. When ordered by police to leave, defendants instead fell limp to the floor, and officers had to carry them out of the building. Defendants were convicted of resisting or obstructing a police officer, trespass and disturbing the peace. Defendants contended in part that the obstructing police conviction violated their First Amendment rights to the Free Exercise of religion because their actions were motivated by their Catholic faith. The court responded:
Defendants do not dispute that MCL 750.81d(1) is facially neutral because it does not refer to religion in any manner. However, “[f]acial neutrality is not determinative.”... While a law plainly targeting a religion obviously is not neutral, “if the object of a law is to infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation, the law [also] is not neutral[.]” ...
... The language of MCL 750.81d is facially neutral, and defendants have not identified any possible legislative intent directed at individuals who practice Catholicism, or even those who oppose abortion on religious grounds. Indeed, even a brief review of recent caselaw from this Court reveals MCL 750.81d is regularly used to prosecute individuals for reasons completely unrelated to religious beliefs.
The court also rejected vagueness and equal protection defenses.
