MDOT new rules will limit protests

MDOT is Proposing Absurd Rules!

A new set of proposed rules by the Michigan Dept of Transportation (MDOT), called "New Safety Rules for Roadside Facilities," are up for consideration. The rules would apply to all 61 highway rest areas, 82 roadside parks, 267 carpool lots, 23 scenic turnouts and 14 welcome centers, as well as on or under highway bridges.

These proposed rules would target those experiencing homelessness, prohibit protests on bridges over highways unless permitted, and limit the free speech rights of petition circulators.

MDOT has proposed rules that could restrict public access and criminalize legal actions, like using public spaces.

Public comments on these rules will be accepted until Nov 20. The next step after will be a review by the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, which is made up of five MI State Reps and Senators. This committee will look at the rules before anything is implemented in the spring of 2026.

MDOT's Proposed Rules

You can read how MDOT describes the rule changes on their website: MDOT's New safety rules for roadside facilities

New Coverage of MDOT's Proposed Rules

Michigan seeks to limit rest stop stays. Some fear 'criminalizing homelessness'

"I've called shelter after shelter": new rule could displace Michigan mom living in her car

What Can You Do?

There is hope when a flood of public comments come in. People can comment more than once, and by multiple methods.

MDOT may respond to a flood of public comments by

• Shut it Down: Decide to not move forward on the proposed rules.
• Add More Public Hearings: They may decide to hold more virtual public hearings, or even multiple statewide and regional hearings.
• Extend Public Comment Deadline: MDOT may extend the deadline for receiving public comments.

Engage with MDOT through submitting public comments and contacting elected officials.

There are two approaches available to us right now, to oppose these proposed rules: submitting public comments and contacting our elected officials.

These actions are key to stopping these proposed rules. Together, we can protect our vulnerable communities, our freedom of speech rights, and our public spaces!

Here's how to effectively make your voice heard:

How to Submit a Public Comment

• Stay Focused: Avoid rants or politics. MDOT cares about the rule's language, not political arguments.
• Be Specific: Point out sections of the proposed rules you oppose.  Identify 2-3 main issues and suggest specific changes.
• Be Constructive: Present flaws clearly, as if speaking to a professional with years of experience.
• High Volume: Encourage others to comment, repeating key points with slight variations (e.g., "These rules criminalize basic actions" or "The proposed rules waste taxpayer money").

How to Call Representatives & Senators

• Personal & Direct: Highlight how the rules infringe on your rights. Example: "I urge you to fight these rules. They will hurt the public and they will certainly affect my right to protest!"
• Real-World Impact: Share practical scenarios: "These rules would criminalize walking on public property" or "They harm vulnerable communities like the homeless."
• Use Strong Language: Make your points memorable: "These rules favor the rich and criminalize the poor."
• Demand Accountability: Remind officials they work for us: "We expect you to oppose these harmful rules."

Submit Public Comment!

Submit your public comments via email: MDOT-PublicComments@michigan.gov

Until Nov 20 2025: Submit your public comments online

Write and Call Representatives & Senators!

We have put together a letter writing campaign tool that can help you send emails to all of the members of the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules

Click here to join our letter writing campaign

We have set up an easy to use tool that will let you write an email to all of the members of the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules.

Joint Committee on Administrative Rules Members:

State Representatives

Representative Douglas C. Wozniak (Chair) (R) DouglasWozniak@house.mi.gov

Representative Gina Johnsen (R) GinaJohnsen@house.mi.gov

Representative Jennifer Wortz (R) JenniferWortz@house.mi.gov

Representative Alabas Farhat (D) AlabasFarhat@house.mi.gov

Representative Brenda Carter (D) BrendaCarter@house.mi.gov

State Senators

Senator Paul Wojno (Alternate Chair) (D) SenPWojno@senate.michigan.gov

Senator Rosemary Bayer (D) SenRBayer@senate.michigan.gov

Mallory McMorrow (D) SenMMcMorrow@senate.michigan.gov

Senator Lana Theis (R) SenLTheis@senate.michigan.gov

Senator Jim Runestad (R) SenJRunestad@senate.michigan.gov

Example Public Comments

Example #1

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed "New Safety Rules for Roadside Facilities."

While the stated intent of these rules is to improve safety and maintain roadside facilities, the language and scope of this proposal represent a deeply troubling overreach that risks undermining fundamental First Amendment rights to free speech and peaceful assembly.

Specifically, MDOT should strike any provisions restricting demonstrating and organizing activities in traditional public spaces such as sidewalks and overpasses, and strike any provisions restricting "bringing a sign or placard" and "bringing voice amplification devices."

These rules also target the unhoused and petition circulators, in addition to protesters, and should be withdrawn or substantially revised to ensure full constitutional compliance.

Example #2

I am writing to express a specific concern regarding the potential restrictions on freedom of speech created by the proposed rules for highway motorist service areas and other Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) facilities.

One of my primary concerns is the overbroad and vague language used in these proposed rules, particularly with respect to the locations covered by the regulations. The proposed rules specifically reference certain areas, such as "highway motorist service areas," "carpool parking lots," and "gated closed areas," but also include broad terms like "bridges." This mixture of specific and vague language creates an ambiguity that could unintentionally restrict free expression in public spaces.

The term "bridges" is particularly problematic. The rules refer to areas "on, under, or in bridges," but the use of these prepositions is vague and does not clearly define what parts of a bridge are subject to the permitting requirements. This lack of clarity could easily be interpreted as covering pedestrian bridges, sidewalks on overpasses, and sidewalks on bridges -- areas that most people would consider "public sidewalks."

By including these potentially public spaces under the definition of "facilities" that require a permit for certain activities, the proposed rules risk restricting the ability of individuals to express themselves in what are widely regarded as public forums. Pedestrian bridges and sidewalks are typically used by the public for everyday transit and should not be arbitrarily regulated as if they are private or restricted areas. The permitting requirements suggested for these spaces could be seen as an unnecessary encroachment on free speech in what should be free and open public spaces.

Moreover, the language in the proposed rules around "official permission" and restrictions on demonstrations, literature distribution, and solicitation introduces a level of bureaucratic oversight that could unduly limit public expression. While I understand the need for safety and order in public spaces, these regulations must be carefully balanced with individuals' right to free speech and peaceful assembly.

In conclusion, I urge the Department of Transportation to reconsider the broad definitions and vague language in these rules, particularly concerning "bridges" and "public sidewalks," to ensure that these regulations do not unintentionally stifle public expression. Clearer definitions and more specific restrictions are necessary to avoid unjustly infringing on fundamental rights.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Example #3

Public Comment on Proposed Rules for Highway Motorist Service Areas and Other MDOT Facilities

I am concerned that the Michigan Department of Transportation's (MDOT) proposed rules could criminalize homelessness by penalizing individuals who seek shelter in public spaces, such as rest areas and highway properties.

The rules would make it a misdemeanor to park for more than 48 hours, sleep in vehicles, or camp in these areas. While safety and maintenance are important, these regulations disproportionately target people experiencing homelessness, who often have few alternatives for shelter.

Rather than criminalizing survival activities, Michigan should focus on providing supportive services, like housing and mental health resources, to help individuals in need.

Penalizing people for simply existing in public spaces does nothing to address the root causes of homelessness and could push individuals into even more dangerous or hidden areas.

I urge MDOT to reconsider these rules and prioritize compassionate solutions that address homelessness with dignity, not punishment.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Example #4

Public Comment on Proposed Rules for Highway Motorist Service Areas and Other MDOT Facilities

I am writing to express my concerns about the Michigan Department of Transportation's (MDOT) proposed rules restricting stays at rest areas and carpool lots, which could disproportionately affect people experiencing homelessness.

While MDOT's intention is to address safety and facility maintenance, this approach fails to tackle the root causes of homelessness and risks criminalizing individuals who are simply trying to survive.

The proposal to limit stays to 48 hours and ban activities like sleeping in vehicles or camping at MDOT properties does not address the larger, systemic issue of affordable housing shortages.

As highlighted by advocates and individuals experiencing homelessness, who are trying to find safe places for themselves and their families, the lack of shelter options and the difficulty of accessing appropriate accommodations are the real problems at hand.

Criminalizing stays at rest areas is not a solution -- it's a response to a symptom of a much larger crisis.

Rather than pushing people into less visible spaces, we should focus on solutions that address the causes of homelessness, such as the lack of affordable housing and accessible shelter for families.

Moving people out of sight does not solve homelessness -- it merely obscures it. Criminalizing the act of trying to survive in public spaces only exacerbates the problem, making it harder for people experiencing homelessness to find safe, temporary refuge.

MDOT's proposed rule, which threatens fines or misdemeanor charges, risks penalizing the most vulnerable members of our society for doing what they must to get by.

This is not the way to address homelessness.

Instead, we need policies that offer support, resources, and pathways to stable housing -- not punitive measures that push people further into the shadows.

I urge MDOT to reconsider these rules and focus on long-term solutions that address the root causes of homelessness, including affordable housing and supportive services. It's crucial that we don't treat the symptoms while ignoring the real crisis at hand.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Example #5

Public Comment on Proposed Rules for Highway Motorist Service Areas and Other MDOT Facilities

I am writing to express concerns about how proposed rules would affect the First Amendment rights of petition circulators. While maintaining public safety is important, these rules should not infringe upon our First Amendment rights, especially the right to petition the government.

The First Amendment protects petitioning as a form of core political speech, and public spaces like sidewalks, streets, and parks have long been recognized as traditional forums for free expression.

Restrictions on access to these spaces, or those which most people would consider public spaces, would limit the ability of circulators to engage the public and gather signatures, undermining democratic participation.

Overly restrictive rules on where circulators can operate could suppress political speech, especially for smaller organizations that lack the resources to navigate regulations or pay for permits.

I urge you to carefully balance public safety needs with the fundamental right to petition the government.