The Michigan Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court’s decision to move forward with the trial of Ethan Cao, a Michigan State University fraternity member, under Michigan’s anti-hazing law, known as Garret’s Law. This marks the first time the court has directly addressed the statute, which criminalizes hazing activities. The case stems from a 2021 fraternity party where one pledge died and three others were injured. The court found that the district court had sufficient evidence to move the case forward for trial and that the law itself is constitutional.
The Party and the Allegations
The case revolves around a “crossover” party held by the Pi Alpha Phi fraternity at Michigan State University in November 2021. The purpose of the party was to transition new pledges into full fraternity members. According to testimony, the pledges were expected to consume a large amount of alcohol. One witness stated the point of the party was to “get really drunk.”
Ethan Cao, described as the “pledge master,” is accused of playing a key role in the events. Evidence presented at a preliminary examination included text messages to and from Cao discussing obtaining alcohol and expressing a desire for the pledges to be intoxicated.
During the party, pledges were given shots of alcohol and encouraged to drink more, a practice known as “scrolling.” Later that night, police were called to the fraternity house where they found several pledges unconscious, including Phat Nguyen, who was later pronounced dead due to acute ethanol toxicity. The other three pledges were hospitalized.
The Legal Arguments
Cao challenged the district court’s decision to bind the case over for trial, arguing that there wasn’t enough evidence to support the charges. He also raised several constitutional challenges to Garret’s Law, claiming it violated his rights to freedom of association and equal protection, and that it was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.
The Court’s Findings
The Court of Appeals addressed each of Cao’s arguments:
Bind Over: The court determined the district court did not abuse its discretion in binding the matter over for trial. The court found there was sufficient evidence presented at the preliminary examination to establish probable cause for each element of the offense. The court specifically noted that Cao’s role as “pledge master” supported the conclusion that he was involved in organizing and facilitating the drinking ritual that led to the death and injuries.
Freedom of Association: Cao argued that the law infringed on his First Amendment right to freedom of association. The court disagreed, stating that Garret’s Law does not criminalize lawful expressive conduct. Instead, the law targets conduct that endangers the physical health or safety of individuals, which is not protected by the First Amendment.
Equal Protection: Cao also claimed that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause by treating student organizations differently. Specifically, he took issue with an exception in the law for activities that are “normal and customary” in athletic programs. The court found that this classification was rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose, as athletic programs are subject to institutional oversight and the exception only applies to normal and customary activities.
Vagueness and Overbreadth: Cao argued that the law was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad because it didn’t provide enough clarity on what constitutes a “reckless act” or what conduct may “endanger the physical health or safety” of an individual. The court rejected this argument, stating that the terms used in the law are commonly understood by persons of ordinary intelligence and that many criminal laws already require fact-finders to evaluate whether a defendant acted recklessly or endangered another’s safety. The court also noted that the law is not vague simply because it criminally prohibits conduct to which a victim consents.
As-Applied Challenge: Cao further claimed the law was unconstitutional as applied to him because he was merely “cheering” at the party. The court rejected this, finding that his role went far beyond cheering. The court highlighted his role as pledge master, organizing, and facilitating the drinking ritual.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decisions, finding that the case against Ethan Cao could proceed to trial and that Garret’s Law is constitutional. The court’s decision reinforces the state’s interest in preventing hazing and protecting the safety of students.