¶ Overview
In 2026, Doug Lloyd claimed red flag laws lacked due process protections, but Extreme Risk Protection Orders included multiple legal safeguards and structured court review.
In 2023, Michigan implemented a red flag law allowing courts to issue Extreme Risk Protection Orders to temporarily restrict firearm access for individuals deemed a risk to themselves or others.
According to Everytown Research & Policy, these laws limited who could file petitions, required evidence of serious threats, and ensured respondents had opportunities to present a defense.
Everytown Research & Policy also found the process included timely hearings and had been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as meeting constitutional due process standards.
¶ Doug Lloyd Claimed Red Flag Laws Lacked Due Process Despite Evidence Of Safeguards And Court Oversight
¶ Doug Lloyd Argued Red Flag Laws Raised Serious Due Process Concerns
¶ Doug Lloyd Claimed Red Flag Laws Could Strip Fundamental Rights Without Due Process Protections
2026: Doug Lloyd Said Red Flag Laws "Raise Serious Due Process Concerns" And Argued Constitutional Rights For Law-Abiding Citizens "Should Be Strengthened." According to Michigan GOP, “My position on both red flag laws and constitutional carry is straightforward: the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens must not only be protected, they should be strengthened. As Attorney General, my duty is to defend the Constitution and ensure that the laws of this state are enforced fairly and lawfully. Red flag laws, as currently written, raise serious due process concerns. They can strip individuals of a fundamental constitutional right without adequate notice, meaningful opportunity to be heard, or proper safeguards. Public safety and constitutional rights are not mutually exclusive, but any law that restricts a core liberty must meet the highest legal standards.” [Michigan GOP, Doug Lloyd, Archived 4/20/26]
- Everytown For Gun Safety: Extreme Risk Protection Orders, Often Called “Red Flag Laws,” Allow Courts To Temporarily Restrict Gun Access For Individuals In Crisis. According to Everytown For Gun Safety, “When a person is in crisis and considering harming themselves or others, family members and law enforcement are often the first people to see the warning signs. Extreme Risk laws, sometimes referred to as ‘Red Flag’ laws, allow loved ones or law enforcement to intervene by petitioning a court for an order to temporarily prevent someone in crisis from accessing guns.” [Everytown For Gun Safety, Archived 4/24/26]
¶ Michigan Implemented Extreme Risk Protection Orders Allowing Courts To Temporarily Restrict Firearm Access
In 2023, Michigan Implemented A Red Flag Law Allowing Courts To Issue Extreme Risk Protection Orders To Temporarily Prevent Individuals Deemed A Risk To Themselves Or Others From Possessing Or Purchasing Firearms. According to the Michigan Department Of Attorney General, “In May 2023, Michigan passed multiple firearm safety laws to protect our communities from gun violence. Among these new laws was one allowing Michigan courts to issue ‘Extreme Risk Protection Orders’ (ERPOs). These orders let civil courts temporarily prevent people at risk of harming themselves or others from possessing or buying guns. ERPOs, available in states with so-called Red Flag Laws, are a tool to prevent gun violence like mass shootings. They can also help prevent suicide attempts, gun injuries and gun deaths. Michigan residents are encouraged to learn about our state’s ERPO process. This will allow them to protect themselves and their loved ones in case of an emergency.” [Michigan Department Of Attorney General, Archived 4/24/26]
¶ Everytown Research & Policy Found That Extreme Risk Protection Orders Included Due Process Safeguards And Legal Protections
Everytown Research & Policy: Extreme Risk Protection Orders Included Multiple Safeguards, Including Evidentiary Standards, Opportunities For Respondents To Present A Defense, And Penalties For False Claims. According to Everytown Research & Policy, “Extreme Risk laws are designed to defuse dangerous situations while also ensuring due process and a system of checks and balances. In each state with an Extreme Risk law, only specific groups of people may request an ERPO. For example, states typically limit ERPO petitioners to law enforcement officers and family or household members. These limitations mean that only people who are very close to the person at risk of harming themselves or others, or who are trained to identify and respond to such risks, can bring forth these cases. State laws typically specify the types of evidence that a judge can consider in an ERPO case. For example, evidence of recent acts and threats of violence or recent unlawful or reckless use of a firearm. The respondent then has the opportunity to respond to any evidence presented, and present their own evidence. Many states’ laws include penalties that apply if the petitioner presents false evidence.” [Everytown Research & Policy, 4/17/20]
Everytown Research & Policy: Extreme Risk Protection Orders Included Court Review, Evidentiary Standards, And Hearings That Provided Due Process Protections. According to Everytown Research & Policy, “The model process for obtaining an extreme risk protection order provides due process protections. Petitioner files a petition in court. This is generally a law enforcement or a family member. This is a civil, not criminal, matter. Judge reviews the petition to determine if there is sufficient evidence that the person poses an imminent threat to themselves or others. Judge issues emergency order, usually valid for 7–14 days, prohibiting the respondent from purchasing or possessing firearms. Judge denies emergency order. A hearing is scheduled within 21 days to determine if a final order should be issued. Police notify respondent of emergency order and date of final hearing. Any firearms in their possession are relinquished. Police notify respondent of final hearing. Judge holds final hearing within 21 days to determine if there is sufficient evidence that the person poses a risk to themselves or others with a firearm. Both parties may present evidence. Judge issues final order, prohibiting the respondent from purchasing or possessing firearms for a specified period (up to one year). Subject to renewal if necessary. The respondent may petition for early removal of the order. Judge denies final order. Any firearms relinquished under an emergency order are returned to respondent.”
[Everytown Research & Policy, 4/17/20]
Everytown Research & Policy: The U.S. Supreme Court Recognized The Extreme Risk Protection Order Processes Met Constitutional Due Process Standards. According to Everytown Research & Policy, “The United States Supreme Court has recognized, in multiple contexts, that this process—a pre-hearing deprivation followed by a full hearing within a reasonable time frame—satisfies the due process of law required by our Constitution. Following the framework established by the Supreme Court, multiple federal and state courts have issued rulings that strongly suggest they would uphold an Extreme Risk law if challenged in court on due process grounds.” [Everytown Research & Policy, 4/17/20]