MI: “New Idea” Is the Same Old Problem – And Taxpayers Will Pay Again

This week, headlines out of Michigan highlight yet another proposal aimed at people on the sex offender registry. This time, a sweeping ban on working in any business that “primarily serves minors”. On its face, the pitch sounds simple: keep kids safe. But beneath the rhetoric lies a familiar pattern — one that courts have already rejected, and one that continues to cost taxpayers millions.

According to reporting by MLive, House Bills 5425 and 5426 would prohibit registrants from working in places like dance studios, summer camps, martial arts schools, and youth sports organizations. The justification is framed as closing a “loophole”, the fact that while registrants cannot teach in schools, they are not categorically banned from all youth-adjacent employment. But even within the coverage, the cracks are obvious.

Opponents point out that this is not a targeted policy. It is a blanket ban affecting more than 45,000 people, including many who did not commit offenses against minors or many who committed an offense decades ago and pose no real risk. That distinction matters, constitutionally and practically. Laws that ignore individualized risk in favor of broad classifications have repeatedly failed under judicial scrutiny in Michigan.

Michigan is no stranger to losing these fights in court. Its registry scheme has already been struck down in major parts for being punitive and unconstitutional when applied retroactively. Yet lawmakers continue to propose measures that double down on the same legal flaws. This bill raises several immediate constitutional concerns: (1) Overbreadth and Lack of Narrow Tailoring – By applying to all registrants—regardless of offense type, risk level, or time since conviction—the bill sweeps far beyond any legitimate public safety goal. Courts have consistently held that laws must be narrowly tailored, not built on assumptions. (2) Ex Post Facto Violations – If applied to individuals whose convictions predate the law, the restriction effectively imposes new punishment after the fact—something courts have repeatedly rejected when it comes to registry expansions. (this has already been decided by the 6th Circuit, ad nauseum, and Michigan stubbornly keeps coming up with new laws bearing the same constitutional infirmity). (3) Due Process Concerns – There is no individualized assessment, no hearing, no mechanism to demonstrate rehabilitation. A person who committed a non-contact offense decades ago is treated identically to someone recently convicted of a serious crime. (4) Occupational Liberty and the Right to Work – Barring entire categories of employment — especially broad ones like “businesses that primarily serve minors” — raises serious questions about the fundamental right to earn a living.

Importantly, opposition to the bill isn’t theoretical, it’s grounded in real-world consequences. Critics cited in the reporting warn that these types of restrictions “alienate” individuals and push them further to the margins of society. That matters because stability, employment, community ties, reintegration are the strongest predictors of reduced recidivism. Policies that undermine those factors don’t enhance safety; they erode it.

Time and again, Michigan passes (or attempts to pass) laws that prioritize optics over evidence. Time and again, those laws are challenged. And time and again, taxpayers foot the bill for defending the indefensible. History has already provided the answer. Broad, punitive registry expansions that ignore individualized risk don’t survive constitutional scrutiny. They don’t improve public safety. And they don’t withstand time. In Michigan, they lose in court. All they do is generate headlines, lawsuits, and legal bills for the taxpayers of Michigan. Yet the state appears ready to repeat the same failing cycle again. Good luck with that!