Rapp was charged with violating a university ordinance prohibiting the disruption of a person, firm or agency working for the university. After a failed appeal in district court and a win in circuit court on the grounds that the ordinance restricted First Amendment rights, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court decision and Rapp again appealed, this time with the Michigan Supreme Court.

Michael Kiley, an attorney who wrote a letter in support of the university ordinance, said the argument on the Michigan Supreme Court level largely focused on the wording of the ordinance and whether “disrupting” a university official meant infringing upon First Amendment rights.

“I don’t think the ordinance reaches unfairly into people’s free speech, but we shall see,” he said. “The question really doesn’t have to do so much with (Rapp) as it does with the ordinance.”

Rapp said he wants to make sure his rights and the rights of other students and MSU community members are protected.

“This is a very, very important day for me personally and for students at MSU,” Rapp said.

J. Nicholas Bostic, Rapp’s attorney on the case, said that the ideal outcome for Rapp would be that the court mandates that the ordinance is completely thrown out and that Rapp is cleared of what he believes is an erroneous charge.

Kiley said even if the court rules that the wording of the ordinance could be considered unconstitutional, justices would clarify how the ordinance should be interpreted in the future instead of throwing out the entire ordinance.

Joseph Finnerty, the prosecuting attorney on the case, said it’s too early to tell which way the court will stand on the issue.

The court will review the case and issue a written opinion when it comes to a decision.

It is not yet known when the opinion will be released.

Staff writer Kellie Rowe contributed to this report.