Legislative Tracker — May 2026 Update

Missouri SB 982 moves major parts of Missouri’s registry framework from narrower offense-list mechanics toward tier-based registration language for people adjudicated of Tier I, Tier II, or Tier III offenses since July 1, 1979. The law gives local registration officials and the Missouri State Highway Patrol roles in initial tier assignment and accuracy review, and it requires certain out-of-state registrants with a temporary Missouri residence to register during that temporary residency.

The act also changes treatment-program documentation rules for registration-period reductions, modifies removal procedures for people whose registration is tied to an out-of-state adjudication, and adjusts public-record handling for registry information. It was signed in May after April passage and takes effect August 28, 2026.

The practical legal change is not one thing. Missouri is simultaneously reorganizing who must register, how tier classification is handled, how some removal petitions work, and how temporary-residence or nonresident work and school situations create registration duties.

For people seeking removal or a shorter registration period, the treatment-record language may matter where old program records are missing or difficult to obtain. That can be especially important for older cases, people who completed probation long ago, and families trying to plan housing, work, and caregiving around a realistic relief timeline.

For people with out-of-state histories, temporary Missouri residence, work, school, or family ties, the same bill can increase compliance exposure. A visit, temporary stay, or cross-border caregiving arrangement can become legally risky if the rules are unclear or implemented unevenly across counties.

The family impact is direct: relief rules affect whether a household can move forward, while temporary-residence rules affect travel, caregiving, work assignments, and whether ordinary family support creates a new registration question.

• Missouri State Highway Patrol guidance before and after the August 28 effective date.
• How courts handle removal or reduction petitions where treatment records are unavailable but probation-completion records exist.
• Whether temporary-residence language is applied narrowly and clearly, or used to create new enforcement exposure for people with family, work, medical, or short-term housing ties in Missouri.

California AB 1568 would alter how courts handle Penal Code section 290.5 termination petitions. It would require hearings to be heard in the county where the person is registered, authorize courts to order petitioners to appear, and add new required consideration of whether the registrant was in a position of trust or authority.

The bill also adds treatment-verification requirements. Courts would consider proof of participation in or completion of sex-offense-specific treatment, require proof of successful completion of a CASOMB-certified program when required, and permit SARATSO assessments where verification is unavailable or the court deems an assessment necessary.

The May development was Assembly passage and Senate referral, which turned the proposal from an Assembly bill into a live statewide Senate action item.

California’s tiered registry system created a path for some Tier I and Tier II registrants to petition for termination after the minimum period. AB 1568 does not erase that path, but it could make the path harder for people with old cases, missing records, prior treatment providers who no longer exist, limited income, transportation barriers, age-related limitations, disability, or out-of-county family obligations.

The cost issue matters. If a court orders a new assessment because older treatment verification is unavailable, the practical result may depend on who pays, whether indigent petitioners get support, and whether the process becomes a delay tactic rather than a public-safety inquiry.

For families, termination access is not abstract. Remaining on the registry affects housing searches, employment, school and childcare routines, travel, family privacy, and the ability to stop organizing ordinary life around public registration.

• Senate committee assignment and whether the bill receives a hearing.
• Amendments addressing remote appearances, transportation barriers, disability accommodations, and who pays for SARATSO assessments.
• Language clarifying how courts should treat old cases where treatment records are unavailable through no fault of the petitioner.

Michigan HB 5425 would add a new section to Michigan’s Sex Offenders Registration Act barring a person required to register from being an employee of a business that primarily provides services to people under 18. HB 5426 supplies the sentencing-guideline tie-bar.

The covered examples are broad: martial arts studios, dance studios, summer camps, tutoring services, youth sports venues, art or hobby classes, mobile vending businesses, bowling alleys, laser tag centers, escape rooms, and any business allowing unsupervised access to minors during activities.

A first violation would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year and/or a fine; a second or later violation would become a felony punishable by up to four years and/or a larger fine. The May hook is Senate referral after House passage.

This is a direct employment restriction based on registry status rather than individualized risk, current supervision terms, work duties, or actual access. It would make work itself the trigger for criminal exposure in a large category of small businesses, recreation businesses, entertainment venues, youth services, vending, and mixed-use spaces.

Employment is one of the strongest anchors for reentry, housing stability, treatment participation, child support, transportation, and family income. A categorical ban can destabilize not only the person required to register, but also spouses, children, aging parents, and households depending on that income.

The chilling effect may be wider than the bill text. Employers may respond by refusing to consider registrants for jobs that do not actually involve unsupervised contact with minors, because the legal category is broad and the perceived risk of hiring is high.

• Whether the Senate Civil Rights, Judiciary, and Public Safety Committee schedules a hearing.
• Amendments narrowing the definition of covered businesses or tying restrictions to actual unsupervised access rather than the business category.
• Whether lawmakers add individualized exceptions, employer safe-harbor clarity, or limits that prevent blanket exclusion from low-risk roles.

In Del Toro v. State, the Nevada Supreme Court held that “compliance” with registration requirements does not mean a person must complete the entire statutory registration period before petitioning for release from lifetime supervision.

The court rejected the State’s full-registration-period argument. A person may still have registration obligations after release from lifetime supervision, but the running registration period does not automatically bar a supervision-release petition.

The decision reverses a district court denial and clarifies that eligibility turns on compliance with registration obligations up to the time of petitioning, not on completion of the full registration term.

This preserves a meaningful supervision-relief pathway. Without the decision, long registration periods could have functioned as automatic lifetime-supervision barriers, even when the person otherwise satisfied the statutory criteria for release.

For registrants and families, the difference between continued registration and continued lifetime supervision can be substantial. Supervision can affect travel, housing, employment, family routines, privacy, treatment requirements, and the risk of technical violations.

The ruling matters because it prevents one legal burden from being used to lock another in place. A person may still have to register, but that does not mean the state can automatically continue lifetime supervision on that basis alone.

• How Nevada district courts apply Del Toro to Tier II and Tier III petitioners.
• Whether prosecutors attempt to narrow the decision in future cases or through legislative amendments.
• Whether defense counsel and impacted families use the ruling to revisit petitions previously discouraged by the State’s full-registration-period argument.

In People v. Green, the Court of Appeals held that strong family support and gainful employment can legally qualify as mitigating circumstances not adequately captured by the SORA Guidelines, even though the defendant in that case did not prove entitlement to a departure.

In People v. Carnegie / People v. Dockery, the court held that youth at the time of the offense cannot be used as a mitigating basis for downward departure under the current Risk Assessment Instrument because the framework treats young age as aggravating. In People v. Townsend, the court affirmed an upward departure where prior conduct was found inadequately captured by the presumptive score.

Together, the decisions clarify how New York courts may treat employment, family support, youth at offense, and prior history in upward and downward departure analysis.

The useful part is Green. Employment and family support are not just character evidence; for many people, they are the foundations that reduce instability, support lawful routines, and help a person remain safely connected to community life.

The limiting part is Carnegie/Dockery. Treating youth only as aggravating under the existing RAI can be out of step with modern risk and developmental evidence, especially where the person has aged, matured, completed treatment, or built a stable adult life.

For families, these decisions affect risk level, public notification, registration duration, stigma, and whether stability evidence is taken seriously at the moment the state assigns a public risk label.

• How lower courts apply Green and what evidence packages are needed to prove employment and family support as meaningful mitigation.
• Whether defense counsel builds stronger records around stability, housing, work, caregiving, and community support.
• Whether New York’s Board or legislature revisits youth-at-offense risk factors in light of developmental and desistance research.

The SMART FY25 Support for Adam Walsh Act Implementation Grant Program listing was updated in May and remains a useful signal of federal implementation pressure even though it is not a new statute.

The program supports jurisdictions developing or enhancing SORNA programs, including registry information collection, interjurisdictional exchange, NSOPW participation, and international-travel notice systems.

Related FY25 SORNA funding materials also point toward ongoing federal support for state and tribal registry modernization and enforcement infrastructure.

Agency funding can reshape registry life without a headline bill. New money can support data systems, automated exchange, public-notification tools, travel-notice processes, and enforcement coordination.

That can increase compliance pressure for registrants and families, especially where agencies modernize enforcement faster than they modernize accessible guidance, error correction, language access, or due-process protections.

There is also a transparency opportunity. If jurisdictions use funds to improve data quality, correct errors, and publish plain-language compliance rules, implementation could reduce some harm even within a flawed registry framework.

• Award announcements and recipient jurisdictions.
• Project descriptions showing whether funds support enforcement-heavy systems or also include data accuracy, error correction, and accessible compliance guidance.
• Whether agencies publish public-facing implementation materials before changing procedures that registrants must follow.