Yes, even where there is no physical trespass, there very well may be other torts or crimes. Obviously, if you set fire to your neighbor's house, you can't get out of an arson charge by arguing that you "only" did it with a laser. You could use a comically-large magnifying glass and still end up a convicted felon in that situation.

However, I don't think it's a weak analysis given the question the court had to answer.

They weren't asked "Can your neighbor get away with shining any light on you or your property, no matter how intense?" but rather "Does shining a light on a person's property count as 'Placing an object on, or delivering an object to, property owned, leased, or occupied by that individual' for purposes of this specific Michigan statute that defines 'unconsented contact' that would support a nondomestic PPO"?

In fact, Michigan state law and the Dearborn, Michigan local ordinances (like numerous other state and local laws) do separately prohibit the use of lasers to injure/harass (at least under certain circumstances): https://www.laserpointersafety.com/rules-general/uslaws/usla....

Conversely, what if we lower the generally acceptable threshold of light intensity from neighbours to zero?

At some level, we all have to get along, and we all have to accept that our neighbours actions are going to affect us in myriad small ways.

I’m all for critical examination and regulation of externalities inflicted on third parties as a result of private activity, but if we start counting photons, I worry that we’ve lost the plot and are simply caving to people who don’t actually want to live in society with others.

I have no idea what the truth of the matter in this case is, but reading the appeal, the guy just sounds like a crank who got a new neighbours who live differently than he does, and he doesn’t like it.