MI: Vague, Overbroad, and Unconstitutional: Michigan’s Registry “Employment Prohibition” Bill Goes Too Far.

Civil liberties advocates are taking issue with new legislation in Michigan that would prohibit anyone on the sex offender registry from working at businesses that “primarily serve” minors. Supporters frame House Bills 5425 and 5426 as common sense protections for children. But opponents argue the proposal is not only overbroad, but unconstitutionally vague.

At the center of the concern is how the bill defines the businesses that would be off-limits. The language extends beyond obvious spaces like summer camps or schools. In committee discussions, examples have even included places like bowling alleys. That breadth, critics say, reveals the bill’s fundamental flaw: no one can clearly determine what qualifies as a business that “primarily provides services” to people under 18.

Miriam Aukerman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU of Michigan (and the Attorney who was primarily responsible for having the registry declared unconstitutional several times already), told lawmakers the measure suffers from the same constitutional defects. She warned that HB 5425 is impermissibly vague. How, she asked, is a person supposed to know whether their employment crosses the line? What counts as a business that allows “unsupervised access” to minors? Retail stores where teens shop? Restaurants? The bill offers no clear answers, leaving individuals to guess at the boundaries of criminal liability.

Jessica Zimbelman, deputy director of the State Appellate Defender Office, echoed those concerns and focused on the sheer scope of the registry itself. She reminded lawmakers that Michigan’s list includes approximately 45,000 people, many of whom did not commit offenses against children or who have worked for years at certain places without issue. The bill, she argued, makes no distinctions based on risk level or the nature of the underlying offense. Instead, it imposes a blanket prohibition that would bar every registrant from working in a wide range of community spaces.

The problem is not the desire to safeguard children. It is the method. When criminal laws are written so broadly that ordinary people cannot determine what conduct is prohibited, courts often find them unconstitutional. Critics warn this bill is headed down that same path and will invite years of costly legal challenges.