MDOT Protest Rules Raise Eyebrows, First Amendment Concerns Among Lawyers, Political Advocates

Michigan Advance

November 7, 2025

A slate of proposed regulations put forth by the Michigan Department of Transportation have activists and political advocacy groups up in arms, as the department mulls broad restrictions on political activity at its facilities, with criminal penalties for those who stray from the rules.

Among the affected areas would be rest areas, as well as bridges and overpasses, spaces often used for petition activity and public protest.

Among the proposed rule changes is a prohibition on demonstrating, organizing, soliciting membership or distributing literature at an MDOT facility without official permission from the department. Those with permission are limited to entrances and exits and non-work areas, and cannot interfere with the operation and use of the facility or block people from entering or exiting.

The proposed rules also block individuals from making sales or soliciting funds, with an exception for charities that receive permission from the department.

The Department of Transportation manages 61 highway rest areas, 82 roadside parks, 267 carpool lots, 23 scenic turnouts and 14 welcome centers, though the rules also apply to the areas on, under or in bridges and culverts, and other bridges or culverts and other department right of ways.

The rules would also bar individuals from bringing signs or placards into an MDOT facility, along with voice amplifying devices, like a megaphone.

Under the proposed rules, official permission can either be granted by permit from the department, or a letter of authorization. Failing to abide by these restrictions, if implemented, would be considered a misdemeanor.

In an appearance on the department’s “Talking Michigan Transportation” podcast, Greg Losch, the head engineer for MDOT’s University Region, said the rules were drafted in response to complaints from the public regarding its public facilities, describing the rules as a starting point should the department need to ask for help from other state agencies.

In regards to the restrictions on politicking at the department’s facilities, Losch said “our goal there is simply to say, ‘Hey, you know, we would like you to get official permission in most situations, because when the public protests or demonstrates in places where traffic could be in contact with pedestrians, we want to make sure some steps have been taken to plan for that, and that traffic control or law enforcement have been contacted.’”

Losch acknowledged the criticism that the rules would infringe upon freedom of speech, but said that was not the department’s goal.

“The people that are worried about this know how to do those things correctly, but there are some bad actors out there that try to block entrance ways or intimidate people at our rest areas, and we want to make sure that we have an ability to ask for help to deal with that behavior,” Losch said.

However, Mariah Bryant, the program director for Voters Not Politicians, argued that the behavior of some bad actors was not grounds to restrict protected speech, warning this rule change would make it harder for petition circulators to gather signatures.

Voters Not Politicians, which successfully led the 2018 initiative to create the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission and is currently supporting the Michigan Money Out of Politics campaign, trains its circulators on how to gather signatures on public property without interfering with others using the property, Bryant said.

“Any circulators who aren’t capable of conducting themselves in a similar fashion should be dealt with on an individual basis,” Bryant said.

While the rules only partially prohibit political activities at MDOT facilities, Bryant emphasized that putting a barrier in place is still government overreach.

“If you have to get a permit then it’s not free speech,” she said.

Mark Brewer, an election lawyer for Goodman Acker and a former chair of the Michigan Democratic Party said the rules were “quite troubling” citing concerns with the broad definition of an MDOT facility.

“A gated, closed area is obviously very different from the plaza in front of a rest stop or at the Michigan welcome centers, which are generally pretty big…you can’t lump them all together,” Brewer said, emphasizing that permits are not required for First Amendment activities in public areas, such as parks.

Alongside granting Department of Transportation officials arbitrary discretion over who they confirm and deny permission, Brewer raised additional concerns with the penalty for violating the rules.

“A violation of these rules is at the very end, it’s a crime. It’s not something you get a ticket for or you get a warning,” Brewer said.

While there are legitimate restrictions against individuals blocking or impeding the movement of people or traffic in public areas, individuals collecting signatures at a table in a public plaza or in the grass of a roadside park aren’t creating any danger, Brewer said.

“The courts have been very clear, starting with the U.S. Supreme Court, that collecting signatures on petitions – whether its candidates or ballot proposals – is constitutionally protected,” Brewer said.

However, Jocelyn Garza, the department’s deputy director of public affairs, told the Advance in an email that the proposed administrative rules are in line with their existing policies and those of other state agencies.

“The rules address issues that have occurred previously. It’s important to note, our intention is not to limit demonstrations from occurring at MDOT facilities or in MDOT right of way but rather ensure that the activity is not disruptive for other users (like blocking a road, sidewalk, entryway, etc.) and all participants remain safe,” Garza said.

Kyle Zawacki, the legislative director of the ACLU of Michigan, said the organization is still reviewing the rules in depth, but raised preliminary concerns around the First Amendment and the department’s requirement for prior approval.

“In [the] current political climate that we find ourselves in, the concern of some of the provisions in these proposed rules being broadly applied to peaceful expressive activity with the potential to infringe on First Amendment rights or to discriminate is extremely concerning,” Zawacki said.

While he does not believe that was the department’s intention, Zawacki said the downstream impact of these rules could impinge on those rights.

Looking at that permitting process, Zawacki said the ACLU of Michigan, at the very least, would suggest monitoring to see how those rulesJon King are enforced, to ensure they’re not applied disproportionately to certain individuals or at certain locations.

When asked about the impact these rules may have on protests held on highway overpasses, Zawacki said the organization is still investigating to ensure they have a full understanding of the situation.

“But we do know that roadways, including sidewalks, have long been held in public trust for the free exercise of speech and assembly peacefully,” Zawacki said. “It is the core tenet of our ability to exercise our free speech, and we have major concerns with its restriction.”

Public comment on the rules will remain open until Nov. 20.

The Michigan Advance, a hard-hitting, nonprofit news site, covers politics and policy across the state of Michigan through in-depth stories, blog posts, and social media updates, as well as top-notch progressive commentary. The Advance is part of States Newsroom, a national 501(c)(3) nonprofit supported by grants and a coalition of donors and readers.