A Michigan House committee has advanced legislation that would prohibit anyone on the state’s sex offense registry from working at — or even owning — businesses that primarily serve minors. While parents praise the bill as a commonsense safety measure, legal experts warn it’s almost certainly unconstitutional and eerily similar to restrictions Michigan courts have already struck down.
What House Bill 5425 Would Do
Sponsored by Representative Matthew Beerling, a Republican from Vassar County, House Bill 5425 would amend Michigan’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) to prohibit registered individuals from being employed by any business that “primarily provides services to individuals under the age of 18.”
The bill package lists specific examples of covered businesses:
- Martial arts and dance studios
- Summer camps
- Tutoring companies
- Youth sports venues
- Bowling alleys
- Escape rooms
Violators would face a misdemeanor charge punishable by up to one year in prison and a $1,000 fine. A second violation escalates dramatically to a four-year term and $2,000 fine. The bill would also require the state to notify registrants of these new employment restrictions.
The Parent’s Perspective: A Real Safety Gap?
Representative Beerling introduced the bill after parents in his district raised concerns about what they see as a dangerous loophole. While Michigan law already prohibits registrants from working in schools, there’s no prohibition against working at — or operating — private businesses serving children.
Logan Christian, a parent from Beerling’s district, shared a startling experience during committee testimony. On the eve of his son’s first martial arts tournament, another parent informed him that his child’s instructor and mentor had been convicted of child sexual abuse.
“Like nearly every adult I have spoken to, my wife and I assumed from the very beginning that a person registered as a PFR could not possibly own or operate a children’s martial arts studio,” Christian told lawmakers.
Beerling’s logic follows a familiar pattern: if we already agree that registrants shouldn’t work in schools, why allow them to work in private businesses that serve the same population of children?
The Constitutional Problem Nobody’s Addressing
Multiple legal experts testified against the bill, and their arguments carry significant weight given Michigan’s own legal history.
Miriam Aukerman, an attorney with the ACLU of Michigan, called the bill “well-intentioned but flatly unconstitutional.” She signaled clearly that the ACLU intends to challenge the legislation in court should it pass.
Jessica Zimbelman, a deputy director in the State Appellate Defender’s Office, offered perhaps the most pointed critique. Michigan’s registry currently contains nearly 45,000 people. The bill would prohibit every single one of them from working at listed businesses — regardless of their actual offense, their risk of reoffending, or whether their crime had anything to do with children.
“The burden should be on employers to ensure that the people they hire are fit to work with children,” Zimbelman argued, noting that employers already have legal liability for negligent hiring.
Michigan’s Already Been Down This Road
This isn’t Michigan’s first attempt at broad geographic and employment restrictions for registrants. In 2006, the state passed legislation prohibiting registrants from living, working, or loitering within 1,000 feet of a school. Those restrictions were struck down by both federal courts and the Michigan Supreme Court as unconstitutional.
The legislature formally removed those zones from SORA when it amended the law in 2021. Representative Beerling, described as fairly new to the legislature, appears either unaware of or unconcerned by this history.
The Vagueness Problem: What Does “Primarily” Mean?
Beyond constitutional concerns about overbreadth, the bill faces a fundamental definitional challenge. What does it mean for a business to “primarily” serve minors?
Aukerman posed a revealing hypothetical to lawmakers: “Is it a crime for a registrant to work as an after-hours cleaner for a hairdresser if a prosecutor can prove that half of the people getting haircuts are under 18?”
During a February committee hearing, Representative Gina Johnson asked sponsor Beerling if there was an established definition for “primarily” in the bill. He admitted there wasn’t but promised to work on clarifying it. Three months later, no clarification has materialized.
For people under supervision, the practical impact would be devastating. As legal advocates noted, probation and parole officers would simply tell registrants they can’t work anywhere that’s even a close call — effectively expanding the ban far beyond its written scope.
Voices From the Registry
Three people currently on Michigan’s registry submitted written testimony opposing the bill. Their words cut to the heart of the reintegration debate:
“Limiting employment impairs my chances of success. Work is my survival. Work is how I support my family. Work is my dignity. I am more than my worst decision.”
“We are attempting to reintegrate back into society and become productive citizens. By restricting our opportunity, it not only hinders our adjustment to society again but greatly reduces the opportunity to prove our own worth.”
These comments highlight a tension that runs through all registry-related legislation: do we want people to successfully reintegrate into society, or do we want to permanently exclude them from economic participation?
The Path Forward: Kill It in Committee?
Advocates in Michigan have reason for cautious optimism. Sources suggest a Michigan senator who chairs the Judiciary Committee may be willing to prevent the bill from receiving a vote — effectively killing it without forcing anyone to go on record against it.
This strategy is common in legislative advocacy around registry issues. When a bill stalls in committee, the chairperson absorbs the political consequences rather than individual legislators having to cast a politically unpopular vote.
However, Michigan’s year-round legislature complicates this approach. In part-time legislatures, advocates can simply run out the clock. In Michigan, there’s no session deadline to hide behind.
What Would Make This Bill Constitutional?
Legal experts, including the podcast hosts, noted that the bill could potentially survive constitutional scrutiny if it were narrowly tailored. Rather than applying a blanket ban to all 45,000 registrants, the legislature could:
- Limit restrictions to individuals whose offenses involved minors
- Include risk assessment considerations
- Define “primarily serves minors” with specificity
- Include exceptions for indirect employment (like after-hours cleaning)
Whether Representative Beerling will take this advice remains to be seen. The bill has been in committee since February without meaningful revision.
Key Takeaways
-
Broad restrictions face legal doom. Michigan courts have already struck down similar blanket restrictions. Legislators ignoring this precedent are setting up taxpayers for expensive litigation.
-
Vague laws hurt everyone. Without clear definitions, the bill would create impossible compliance scenarios that effectively ban registrants from working anywhere.
-
Strategic advocacy matters. Working to stop harmful legislation in committee, before public votes occur, remains one of the most effective tools for criminal justice reform advocates.