Michigan’s Felony Theft Thresholds Are Stuck in Old Dollars

Federal policymakers are openly debating inflation adjustments to theft sentencing thresholds. Michigan’s felony larceny thresholds have not moved in any meaningful way since 1999. When the law fails to update the math, ordinary economic hardship becomes life-altering criminal exposure.

What the Federal Commission Is Proposing in 2026

The U.S. Sentencing Commission published proposed 2026 amendments to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in December 2025 and January 2026, with the comment period closing in February and March 2026. Among the most significant proposals is an inflation adjustment to monetary tables and values throughout the Guidelines Manual, using a CPI multiplier methodology that mirrors the approach the Commission used in 2015’s Amendment 791, the last time the federal table was substantially updated.^[1]

Amendment 791 in 2015 adjusted the loss table under §2B1.1 and several other monetary tables using CPI data going back to when each table was last substantively amended. The 2026 proposal would apply the same methodology to bring tables current. According to the New York City Bar Association’s comments on the proposal, using fiscal year 2024 data, 37 percent of individuals charged with economic crimes would see a reduction in their offense level if an inflation adjustment were applied.^[2]

Separately, the Commission proposed restructuring the §2B1.1 loss table from 16 tiers to 8, with the stated goals of reducing litigation over marginal dollar amounts and shifting emphasis from hyper-granular loss calculations toward individualized culpability. The Department of Justice offered limited support for the package, approving the non-economic harm consideration but objecting to the overall trend toward lower sentences, calling it the wrong message.^[3] If the Commission adopts these amendments and Congress does not act to reject them, they take effect November 1, 2026.^[4]

Michigan’s Current Threshold Structure

Michigan’s larceny statute, MCL 750.356, uses a four-tier structure based on property value. Property stolen worth less than $200 is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 93 days. Property worth $200 to $999 is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year. Property worth $1,000 to $19,999 is a felony punishable by up to five years. Property worth $20,000 or more is a felony punishable by up to ten years.^[5] These thresholds were established by Act 311 of 1998 and became effective January 1, 1999.

That 1998 revision was itself an inflation correction. The Senate Fiscal Agency analysis accompanying House Bills 4444 through 4446 in the 1997–1998 legislative session stated explicitly that the bills would address changes caused by normal inflationary increases over the prior 39 years. The $100 misdemeanor/felony line for simple larceny had not changed since 1957.^[6] The 1998 legislature looked at a statute calibrated to 1957 dollars, concluded that inflation had distorted its application, and updated the thresholds accordingly.

That legislature’s analytical reasoning is exactly the reasoning that should apply again today. The 1998 threshold was designed to reflect the value of $1,000 in 1998. In 2026, that amount is worth roughly $1,870 to $1,900 in purchasing power. Someone who steals property worth $1,100 today is not committing the kind of theft the 1998 legislature was calibrating to a felony. They are committing conduct the 1998 legislature would have evaluated as a high misdemeanor.

What Inflation Does to Old Charging Lines

The effect of stagnant thresholds on charging is not theoretical. As the dollar loses purchasing power over time, the range of conduct that crosses a statutory threshold expands. A $1,000 felony line in 1999 captured conduct that was meaningfully different from a $200 theft. Today, $1,000 and $1,800 represent a much narrower range of practical difference. The law still treats one as a misdemeanor and the other as a felony with up to five years attached, because the legislature has not updated the threshold to account for the economy that now exists.

This is not a Michigan-specific problem. Stagnant theft thresholds are a documented feature of state criminal codes across the country. What makes Michigan worth examining specifically is that its 1998 revision was explicitly framed as an inflation correction, and that the same legislature’s analysis provides the clearest argument for revisiting the thresholds again. The legislature made the argument. It just stopped making it after one revision.

The Michigan retail fraud statute, MCL 750.356c and 750.356d, follows a similar structure, with first-degree retail fraud (a felony) triggered at $1,000 or more. The embezzlement statute, MCL 750.174, uses the same dollar tiers as the larceny statute for penalty escalation. All of these provisions are calibrated to a 1999 economy.

From Shoplift to Felony Record: The Human Cost

A conviction under MCL 750.356(3)(a) for theft between $1,000 and $20,000 is a five-year felony. That is the criminal sentence. The collateral consequences extend further and persist longer. A felony record in Michigan affects eligibility for occupational licenses in dozens of fields, creates barriers to public housing and federal student aid, triggers enhanced penalties for future offenses, and in some contexts affects voting rights during supervision.

The populations most affected by stagnant theft thresholds are not high-volume commercial theft operations. They are individuals making decisions under economic pressure, people who steal food, tools, or lower-value consumer goods because they cannot afford them. The five-year felony tier was designed to capture substantially more serious conduct. Static thresholds mean that conduct the original legislature would have evaluated as misdemeanor-level is now a felony, not because of any legislative decision to treat it that way, but because the math has not been corrected.

Why Threshold Reform Is a Fairness Issue, Not a Soft-on-Crime Issue

Opposition to theft threshold reform typically frames any upward revision as reducing deterrence or making it easier to steal. That framing does not engage with what an inflation adjustment actually does. An inflation adjustment preserves legislative intent. It says: we designed this threshold to capture conduct of a certain severity, and we are adjusting it so that it continues to capture conduct of that severity, rather than expanding over time to capture conduct of lesser severity.

Michigan’s legislature made exactly this argument in 1998. The Senate Fiscal Agency analysis stated that the prior $100 threshold had not changed since 1957, that inflation had caused offenses that once would have been considered misdemeanors to become felonies, and that the revision was designed to correct that distortion. The 1998 legislature was not soft on crime. It was precise about what felony exposure is for.

Federal policymakers have now made the same argument at the Sentencing Commission level. The Commission’s 2026 proposal, its 2015 Amendment 791, and the substantial academic and legal commentary supporting inflation adjustment all converge on the same conclusion: static monetary thresholds in criminal statutes do not preserve deterrence, they expand the scope of severe punishment over time without any deliberate legislative decision to do so.