AN ACT RELATING TO COMMERCIAL LAW -- GENERAL REGULATORY PROVISIONS -- DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES
HB 5247 excludes incarcerated individuals from Michigan FOIA rights, limiting inmates' access to public records.
HB 5247 excludes incarcerated individuals from Michigan FOIA rights, limiting inmates' access to public records.
Status / Key dates
- Bill number: HB 5247 (amendments to MCL 15.231 et seq.)
- Introduced: filed March 14, 2025 (House sponsor: Rep. Stephanie Young; later version dated Nov. 12, 2025)
- Legislative action (selected): Passed both chambers in May 2025, enrolled May 29, 2025; signed by Governor June 20, 2025; effective immediately (June 20, 2025).
- Amends: sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Purpose / intent
HB 5247 revises the Michigan FOIA to (1) narrow who is treated as a “person” entitled to access public records (by excluding incarcerated individuals), (2) add and clarify multiple definitions (notably cybersecurity-related terms, “field name,” and “software”), and (3) adjust procedural/technical aspects of how written FOIA requests must be made and processed.
Key provisions and changes
- Exclusion of incarcerated people:
- The bill revises the FOIA policy language to state that “all persons, except those persons incarcerated in state or local correctional facilities, are entitled to full and complete information….”
- The statutory definition of “person” is amended to explicitly exclude any individual serving a sentence of imprisonment in a state or county correctional facility (in Michigan or another state) or in a federal correctional facility.
- Practical effect: people serving imprisonment sentences are not treated as “persons” under FOIA and, as drafted, would not have the statutory FOIA right to inspect or obtain public records.
- New/clarified definitions (Section 2):
- Adds definitions for cybersecurity concepts: “cybersecurity assessment,” “cybersecurity incident,” “cybersecurity plan,” and “cybersecurity vulnerability.”
- Defines “field name” (labels for database elements) and “software,” and expands definitions of “writing” and “written request” to explicitly include electronic means (fax, email).
- Modifies definition of “public body” to reiterate the judiciary’s exclusion and clarify certain county clerk roles.
- Request procedure and requirements (Section 3, partial):
- Reaffirms requester rights to inspect/copy records except as otherwise exempted (section 13) and subject to specified subsections.
- Tightens information required in written requests: non‑indigent requesters must provide full name, USPS‑format address, and contact information (phone or email), and organizations must provide contact info for an individual agent. Subscriptions to periodic records limited to 6 months (renewable).
- FOIA coordinators must retain copies of written requests (further procedural text truncated in provided copy).
Who is affected
- Primary: incarcerated individuals (state, county, federal) — they would be excluded from FOIA requester rights under the statutory “person” definition.
- Secondary: public bodies and FOIA coordinators (departments, county/city clerks, corrections departments) — must implement new procedural requirements and apply expanded cybersecurity-related definitions when deciding disclosure/redactions.
- Requesters generally: increased specificity for written requests (address/contact requirements) may affect how requests are submitted and processed.
- Advocacy groups, courts, and legal counsel: potential litigation/interpretation issues around the scope of exclusion for incarcerated persons and interaction with other legal rights (e.g., access to records for legal defense).
Procedural / implementation notes
- The bill amends multiple core FOIA definitions and the requester procedure; some drafting anomalies appear in the introduced text (e.g., phrasing around “FOIA coordinator” and truncated sections). Full statutory text and any subsequent agency guidance or court interpretation will determine operational impacts.
- Because the bill adds cybersecurity-related definitions, public bodies may rely on them to withhold or redact technical/security information (database layout/field names, software details, vulnerability data) to protect critical infrastructure or systems.
Limitations / items not shown in excerpt
- The provided document is truncated for some sections (the later part of Section 3 and full changes to Section 5 are not shown). Those parts could contain additional procedural changes, fees, timelines, or exceptions not summarized here.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.