WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 270

Relating to: the right of appeal for complainants aggrieved by decisions of the Elections Commission concerning the conduct of election officials.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Steve Nass and 1 co-sponsor

SB 270 grants civil immunity and fee-shifting for those who use or threaten force under Michigan's Self-Defense Act, with a presumption of immunity in certain criminal outcomes.

Failed to pass notwithstanding the objections of the Governor pursuant to Joint Rule 82
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 270

Summary — SB 270 (Amendments to MCL 600.2922b & 600.2922c)

Status: Referred to Committee on Civil Rights, Judiciary, and Public Safety (Introduced Feb 3, 2025)
Primary change: Creates civil‑immunity protections and a fee‑shifting remedy for persons who use or threaten force in compliance with Michigan’s Self‑Defense Act (MCL 780.972).

Purpose / Intent

The bill is intended to protect individuals who act in self‑defense (or in defense of another) from civil lawsuits arising from the use or threatened use of force when that use complies with the Self‑Defense Act. It also creates a procedural presumption of immunity in certain favorable criminal‑process outcomes and requires courts to award costs and attorney fees to defendants who are found immune under the statute.

Key provisions

  • Adds/rewrites MCL 600.2922b (immunity) and MCL 600.2922c (fees and costs).
  • Scope of immunity:
    • Immunity from civil liability for damages (including personal injury or death) to:
    • The person against whom the force was used or threatened; and
    • Any person claiming damages based on relationship to that person (e.g., family members).
    • Applies to use of deadly force, non‑deadly force, and threats of force — so long as the actor’s conduct complies with section 2 of the Self‑Defense Act (MCL 780.972).
  • Presumption of immunity:
    • A rebuttable presumption that the actor is immune if any of the following criminal‑process outcomes occurred in relation to the same use/threat of force:
    • Grand jury or judicial officer declined to indict;
    • Prosecuting attorney declined to issue a complaint;
    • Magistrate refused to issue a warrant or summons under MCL 764.1a;
    • Defendant discharged by court after a preliminary exam;
    • Criminal charge resulted in acquittal or was dismissed.
  • Fee‑shifting and recovery:
    • If a court determines the defendant used/threatened force in compliance with the Self‑Defense Act and is immune under the new immunity section, the court shall award the defendant actual attorney fees, court costs, lost income, and other expenses incurred defending the civil action.

Who is affected

  • Individuals who use or threaten force in self‑defense (or defense of another) in compliance with MCL 780.972 — they gain affirmative civil immunity and potential recovery of defense costs.
  • Persons injured (or their relatives) who bring civil suits alleging harm from such defensive conduct — their ability to recover may be limited and they risk paying the defendant’s fees if the court finds immunity applies.
  • Insurers, civil litigants, and courts — procedural effects (presumption, shifting of fees) may change litigation strategies and burdens.

Procedural / timing aspects

  • Effective date in the text: September 1, 2025 (if enacted). The bill states it applies only to causes of action that accrue on or after the effective date.
  • Introduced (Feb 3, 2025) and referred to the Senate committee noted above. (Committee hearings and subsequent referrals were scheduled as part of the bill’s legislative processing.)

Practical implications / considerations

  • Lowers civil exposure for people claiming lawful self‑defense, and creates a statutory mechanism to reimburse defense costs when a court finds immunity.
  • The presumption tied to prior criminal‑process outcomes shifts evidentiary posture in civil cases (may limit discovery or speed dismissal), but remains rebuttable.
  • Potential policy debates include balancing protection for lawful self‑defenders against access to civil remedies for injured parties, and the impact of fee‑shifting on meritorious but unsuccessful claimants.

If you’d like, I can:
- Draft a one‑page explainer comparing current law to the changes proposed here, or
- Outline likely constitutional or litigation issues (e.g., interplay with existing tort law, burden of proof, confidentiality of prosecutorial declinations).

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.