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!
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I am moving and want too out of state of Florida. I am owner of property so do have the option to rent. Its 3 bedroom 2 bath on lake with pool .3 acre land. With right price consider renting and with new bills with restrictions this may help for its 1000 feet and with lake can not build or create daycare or child care facility. Lake is private since you love on it be your personal waterway too. FAC is there some way to help facilitate this for i would only rent to PFR and since background i know be there lol be more income verification for me.
We don’t subsidize rent
Not to do that but to help find a family that may need a house to rent in hernando
Does anyone else see the hypocrisy here? Yes, these are state legislatures rather than federal officials, but does anyone truly believe state legislatures are any more ethical or noble than their slimy federal counterparts?
These clowns are just junior versions of the same Epstein Island system: always running multiple taxpayer-funded mechanisms to effectively shield officials from accountability for their s2exul escapades while using public money to cover up their s3xual misconduct and passing draconian laws against the population. The whole rafter in the eye scenario and do as I say not as I do.
There is a very high likelihood this legislation will pass, allowing lawmakers to tighten restrictions further on lower-income individuals. While Michigan courts have occasionally struck down portions of overly broad or unconstitutional laws (does vrs state 1,2,3,), one critical detail is often overlooked: it’s largely a “nuts and shells” game. In practice, very little positive ever truly changes.
I know this from personal experience—my own case was one of those cited, and my wife’s statement became one of the most widely publicized and disseminated examples. The pattern is predictable: Legislatures pass expansive laws containing dozens of provisions that are legally questionable or outright unconstitutional. After years of enforcement, courts may strike down one or two provisions, but they typically give the state an opportunity to rewrite and re-enact similar measures then return to appeals, then rewrite then appeals, virtually for forever.
During that time, the state continues enforcing the original (often illegal) rules for additional years while drafting replacements that are frequently even more restrictive with no relief for the victims and no punishment to the state. The cycle repeats indefinitely. Don’t take my word for it—look at Doe v. State in Michigan, (1,2,3,4 ect…). After decades of litigation, there is still no meaningful resolution, and the situation has arguably grown worse with each round. The legislature rarely waits for one set of restrictions to be fully litigated before introducing new, even harsher measures to layer on top.
I wish people actually cared for the safety of their children instead of ignoring them to hate us.
“Laws that ignore individualized risk in favor of broad classifications have repeatedly failed under judicial scrutiny in Michigan.”
Have laws like this also failed in Florida? I am thinking of the out of state lifelong florida registration for someone left on the roll after leaving the state from a vacation or left the state and removed from their state of conviction?
FAC’s initial Out of State Challenge filing was withdrawn due to statute of limitations issues affecting our initial plaintiff. Lawsuits filed by others facing this issue have not been successful.
Our plan is to try again, but under current circumstances, this is not the right time to re-file.
they never really fail . they almost always succeed just as a hide the bad legislation game cycles.. Legislation says this looks draconian and illogical so let’s do it. court says “I’ll ignore 97% of it and pretend to find 3% illegal.. Don’t stop enforcing it, just keep it up until you rewrite something even worse then I’ll see you again in a few years to rinse and repeat..
In Tennessee, we aren’t supposed to patronize any restaurant that has a child’s play area (e.i.: McDonald’s Play Area) ..
Okay, I sorta do understand this type of thinking, as some might go to McDonald’s to just sit and watch children “play” ..
But here’s the kicker: When I asked my PO about going through the drive-thru, her response was, “… not even the drive-thru” ..
I responded, “But I’m using the drive-thru on the other side of the building where there are no children?” She said, “But it still has a play area, so the answer is still, no”.
Then she said, “We have 5 McDonald’s in Cleveland (Tennessee), you can use one that doesn’t have a play area (the closest non-play area is 4 miles away versus 1 mile away with a play area) ..
🤔 .. Here’s the strange part .. Children STILL go to McDonald’s whether they have a play area or not .. But we can go to them just fine ..
Stop trying to think logically about it, you will only hurt your head.
The other thing here is, to split hairs, is the wording “patronize a business with a play area”, e.g., McD’s. Technically, if you used a food delivery service to deliver food from said business, you have still possibly patronized the business by a third party and are in violation of the law as you quoted from the PO. There is no specific clarification on how one can/cannot patronize the business. Clarification is needed from the court on patronizing of the establishment whether it be on the inside, the drive-thru, and via third party services because the PO has established a blanket extra requirement which has not been established in the law as you quoted. Unless there is an immediate threat, the drive-thru and third party services should be acceptable uses to patronize the business regardless if there is a play area or not on the premise. Maybe I am wrong though in my line of thought…
I wish Florida courts had the common sense that Michigan courts seem to have…
That will never happen tj. Florida, and common sense, don’t go hand in hand.