HB 737: Vague ban on residential protests

Broadly criminalizes participating in a protest within 50 feet of a residence that “threatens to disrupt, or harasses” an individual’s “right to control or use” their residence. The law does not make exceptions for protests that take place in public parks or on sidewalks—traditional public forums—that may be within 50 feet of residential buildings. Nor does the law require any intent on the part of protesters to target a specific residence or to harass or disturb specific residents. The law also does not require that a protest actually disrupt an individual's right to use their residence, only that it "threaten" to do so. It is also unclear what would constitute "harassing" an individual's right to use their residence, for the purpose of the law.

Status: enacted

Introduced 18 Mar 2024; Approved by House 9 April 2024; Approved by Senate 20 May 2024; Signed by Governor Landry 18 June 2024

HB 383: Civil immunity for drivers who hit protesters

Limits the civil liability of drivers who injure or kill protesters who were unlawfully in the street. The law provides that if a driver hits someone who was illegally “blocking a roadway,” the driver cannot be sued for any injury, death, or damage if he “reasonably believe[d]” that he was in immediate danger of injury and was trying to “retreat or escape.” The sponsor cited a rise in protests across the country as motivation for the bill.     

Status: enacted

Introduced 29 Feb 2024; Approved by House 8 April 2024; Approved by Senate 20 May 2024; Signed by Governor Landry 11 June 2024

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Traffic Interference

HB 205: New racketeering penalties for protesters

Adds nonviolent protest-related offenses to the underlying crimes that can be prosecuted under Louisiana’s racketeering law, which carries steep penalties. Offenses that are now covered by the racketeering law include “simple obstruction of a highway of commerce,” “riot,” “inciting to riot,” "institutional vandalism," and “aiding and abetting others to enter or remain on premises where forbidden.” As such, individuals in a protest that merely makes movement on a highway “more difficult” (a minor misdemeanor offense) could be charged with a violation of Louisiana’s racketeering law if they did so more than once and as part of an enterprise with others. Louisiana law defines “riot” broadly, requiring no actual violence or damage but three or more people engaged in a “public disturbance” that creates a “danger of injury or damage” by an “imminent threat of tumultuous and violent conduct,” so individuals who participate in tumultuous protests could likewise be charged with racketeering. The law also adds “criminal damage to a critical infrastructure” to the racketeering law, such that certain civil disobedience actions near pipelines and other infrastructure, including sites under construction, could be covered as well. Racketeering violations are punishable by up to 50 years in prison with hard labor and a one million dollar fine.

Status: enacted

Introduced 26 Feb 2024; Approved by House 2 April 2024; Approved by Senate 14 May 2024; Signed by Governor Landry 10 June 2024

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure, Riot, Trespass

HB 127: Heightened penalties for street protesters and organizers

Increases existing penalties for impeding traffic and creates a new offense that could cover individuals who plan or organize protests that would impede traffic. Under prior law in Louisiana, engaging in conduct that makes movement on any road “more difficult” was a misdemeanor, punishable by six months in jail and $200. The law adds an offense of “conspiracy” or “aiding and abetting” of others to engage in such conduct. As written, the new offense does not require that that the protest or other act actually take place or that it actually impede traffic. The law also increases the fine for both offenses to $750.

Status: enacted

Introduced 22 Feb 2024; Approved by House 15 April 2024; Approved by Senate 16 May 2024; Signed by Governor Landry 10 June 2024

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Traffic Interference

HB 727: NEW PENALTIES FOR PROTESTS NEAR GAS AND OIL PIPELINES

Targets protests around gas and oil pipelines by expanding the definition of "critical infrastructure" and providing for the offense of "unauthorized entry of a critical infrastructure." Under the law, "critical infrastructure" is amended to include "pipelines," "any site where the construction or improvement of [pipelines or any other listed infrastructure facility] is taking place," as well as "all structures, equipment, or other immovable or movable property located within or upon" such facilities. Unauthorized entry onto critical infrastructure property as defined above is punishable by imprisonment with or without hard labor for up to five years and a fine of $1,000. As originally introduced, the law included a new crime of "conspiracy to engage in unauthorized entry" of a critical infrastructure facility, punishable by imprisonment with or without hard labor for up to five years and a fine of $10,000, such that individuals who only planned to hold a peaceful protest on infrastructure property could be prosecuted. The amended and enacted version of the bill removed the provisions on conspiracy, however. In addition, prior to the law's enactment, provisions were added to mandate that the law would not apply to "[l]awful assembly and peaceful and orderly petition, picketing, or demonstration for the redress of grievances or to express ideas or views regarding legitimate matters of public interest."

Status: enacted

Introduced 26 Mar 2018; Approved by House 12 April 2018; Approved by the Senate 8 May 2018; Signed into law by Governor Edwards 30 May 2018

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass

HB 355: Criminal immunity for drivers who hit protesters

Would establish immunity from criminal prosecution for drivers who injure or kill protesters who are unlawfully in the street. The bill provides that if someone is illegally “blocking a roadway,” a driver is legally justified in using “reasonable and apparently necessary” force or violence, including lethal violence, if he “reasonably believes” that he is in immediate danger of injury and is trying to “retreat or escape.” The sponsor cited a rise in protests across the country as motivation for the bill.

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 29 Feb 2024.

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Traffic Interference

HB 101: New legal justification for killing protesters

Would amend Louisiana's law on "justifiable homicide," allowing individuals who kill someone to be absolved if the killing was committed "for the purpose of preventing imminent destruction of property or imminent threat of tumultuous and violent conduct during a riot." If enacted, the provisions could encourage deadly confrontations at protests. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 21 Feb 2022.

Issue(s): Riot, Stand Your Ground

HB 197: New penalties for protests near critical infrastructure

Would build on a 2018 law that heightened penalties for protesters near pipelines and other "critical infrastructure"(see HB 727). The bill further expands the definition of "critical infrastructure" to include "water control structures, including floodgates or pump stations." This would expand the universe of places where protesters could face felony charges and 5 years in prison for "unauthorized entry of a critical infrastructure" e.g. for protests near dams and levees, as well as such structures that are under construction. The bill also provides heightened penalties for "unauthorized entry of a critical infrastructure" during a state of emergency: Under the bill, if a state of emergency is in effect, unauthorized entry onto critical infrastructure (for instance during a peaceful protest) is punishable by at least 3 and up to 15 years imprisonment, along with a fine of $5,000-$10,000. As such, protesters could face even harsher penalties for protesting on infrastructure property or infrastructure construction sites during a state of emergency. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 24 Feb 2020; Approved by House 22 May 2020; Approved by Senate 29 May 2020; Vetoed by Governor Edwards 12 June 2020

Issue(s): Infrastructure, State of Emergency, Trespass

HB 269: Mandatory sanctions for campus protesters

Would have created mandatory disciplinary sanctions that could be applied to peaceful protesters on college and university campuses. The bill prohibits "protests and demonstrations that infringe upon the rights of others to engage in or listen to expressive activity" on college campuses. In addition, the bill requires public colleges to suspend for at least one year or expel any student found responsible for infringing the expressive rights of others, including by protesting. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 30 Mar 2017; Vetoed by Governor Edwards 27 June 2017

Issue(s): Campus Protests

HB 1226: New criminal penalties for masked protesters

Creates a serious new crime that can cover peaceful protesters who choose to wear a mask. The law makes it a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and $3,000, to wear a mask “with the intent to conceal the identity” of the wearer while “congregating in a public place with other individuals wearing a mask, hood, or other device that covers, hides, or conceals any portion of the individual’s face.” The bill exempts public gatherings to celebrate “Halloween, a masquerade, or other similar celebration,” but does not include exemptions for masks worn during protests, or worn for health, religious, or other reasons. As written, the law can cover a protester wearing a mask to avoid retaliation for their political speech, if there are other individuals in the crowd also wearing a mask—for instance, a medical mask to avoid spreading or contracting a contagious disease.   

Status: enacted

Introduced 13 Jan 2025; Approved by House 10 February 2025; Approved by Senate 9 April 2025; Signed by Governor Armstrong 23 April 2025

Issue(s): Face Covering

SB 2044: Heightened penalties for protests near critical infrastructure

Enhances potential penalties for individuals who protest near existing and planned gas and oil pipelines by criminalizing acts that interrupt or interfere with critical infrastructure facilities. In addition to prohibiting actual tampering with critical infrastructure property and equipment, the law prohibits "interfering, inhibiting, impeding, or preventing the construction or repair" of a critical infrastructure facility. Further, the law expands the definition of "critical infrastructure facility" to include a "site or location designated or approved for the construction of a facility" such as an oil or gas pipeline. Intentional interruption of a critical infrastructure facility, including by interfering with pipeline construction, is a Class C felony under the law, subject to a penalty of five years' imprisonment, a fine of $10,000, or both. The law also creates organizational liability for such acts: An organization found to have "conspired" with an individual who committed the interference could be criminally liable for ten times the fee imposed on the individual, or up to $100,000. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 3 Jan 2019; Approved by Senate 15 Feb 2019; Approved by House 25 March 2019; Signed by Governor Burgum 10 April 2019

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure

HB 1426: Heightened penalties for riot offences

Increases the penalties imposed for riot offenses. Under the law, participation in a riot is a Class A rather than Class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison and a $3,000 fine. Engaging in a riot involving more than 100 people is made a Class B felony, subject to 10 years in prison and a $20,000 fine. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 16 Jan 2017; Governor Burgum signed the law on 23 Feb 2017

Issue(s): Riot

HB 1293: Expanded scope of criminal trespass

Expands the scope of criminal trespass activity under state law such that it could encompass protests, demonstrations, or other gatherings on private property, if notice against trespass is "clear from the circumstances." The offense could be punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a $1,500 fine. The law also creates an additional, noncriminal trespass offense and allows officers to issue a citation with a $250 fine for trespassing. The law was part of a package of legislation introduced in response to the Dakota Access Pipeline protests.

Status: enacted

Introduced 12 Jan 2017; Signed by Governor Burgum 23 Feb 2017

Issue(s): Trespass

HB 1304: New penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

Prohibits the wearing of masks, hoods, or other device that "conceals any portion" of an individual's face while committing a criminal offense, in order to avoid recognition or identification. As drafted, the offense could encompass, e.g., individuals wearing hooded clothing while participating in a protest and also committing a minor offense such as jaywalking. Under the law, commission of the offense comprises a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $3,000 fine. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 12 Jan 2017; Governor Burgum signed it 23 Feb 2017

Issue(s): Face Covering

HB 1240: Restitution penalty for offenses related to "riot"

Would permit a court to order restitution as an additional penalty for riot-related offenses. Under the bill, a person guilty of engaging in or inciting a "riot," or failure to obey law enforcement's orders "during a riot," may be ordered to make restitution for any property "damaged or destroyed in the course of the riot." The bill does not require that a restitution order be linked to an individual's direct responsibility for the damaged property. A bystander at the scene of a protest that was deemed a "riot," for instance, who does not comply with a police officer's orders, could face not only up to one year in jail (the penalty under current law) but also be charged with the cost of replacing property that was damaged by other protesters. "Riot" is defined under North Dakota law as a "public disturbance involving an assemblage of five or more persons which by tumultuous and violent conduct creates grave danger of damage or injury to property or persons or substantially obstructs law enforcement or other government function."

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 11 Jan 2021; Failed to pass House 10 February 2021

Issue(s): Riot

HB 1203: Eliminating driver liability for hitting protesters

Would have eliminated the liability of a motorist who causes "injury or death to an individual obstructing vehicular traffic on a public road, street, or highway," as long as the motorist did so unintentionally. Under the bill, such a motorist would not be liable for any damages nor guilty of an offense. Accordingly, the bill would allow motorists to strike and even kill protesters without liability as long as the collision was negligent or accidental. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 16 Jan 2017; Failed in House on 13 Feb 2017

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Traffic Interference

HB 1193: Expanding Traffic Interference to Commercial Activity and Creating a New Crime of Causing Economic Harm

Would expand traffic interference to include obstructing a private facility or private commercial equipment. Would also create a new Class C felony offense of committing a misdemeanor with the intent to cause "economic harm" of greater than $1,000 to the government or a private individual. Economic harm does not include law enforcement costs and the law does not apply to constitutionally protected activity. A Class C felony is punishable by up to five years in jail or a $10,000 fine.

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Jan 2017; Approved by House 2 February 2017

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

HB 3557: New criminal and civil penalties for protests around critical infrastructure

Creates new criminal sanctions and expansive civil liability for protests near pipelines and other infrastructure facilities, including those under construction. The law provides for four new criminal offenses. One, "impairing or interrupting operation of critical infrastructure facility," is defined as entering or remaining on facility property and intentionally or knowingly "impair[ing] or interrupt[ing] the operation of" the facility. The act is a state jail felony, punishable by up to two years in jail and a $10,000 fine. This provision could target peaceful protests that, e.g., hinder access to pipelines or pipeline construction sites. A second offense, "intent to impair or interrupt critical infrastructure," is defined as entering or remaining on facility property "with the intent to impair or interrupt the operation of the facility." The act is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by a year in jail and a $4,000 fine. This provision could capture peaceful protests that take place near a pipeline or other infrastructure facility, regardless of whether they actually impair or interrupt the facility's operations. The law also creates two new felony offenses for "damage" and "intent to damage" critical infrastructure. Under the law, an association that is found guilty of any of the offenses around critical infrastructure is subject to a $500,000 fine. The law also creates new civil and vicarious liability for individuals and organizations related to the criminal offenses: A defendant who engages in conduct covered by any of the criminal offenses is civilly liable to the property owner, as is an organization that "knowingly compensates" a person for engaging in the conduct. The property owner may sue for and claim actual damages, court costs, and exemplary damages.

Status: enacted

Introduced 6 Mar 2019; Approved by House 7 May 2019; Approved by Senate 20 May 2019; Signed by Governor Abbott 14 June 2019

Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure

SB 2876: Heightened penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

Would increase criminal penalties that could cover peaceful protesters who choose to wear a mask. Under the bill, a protesters charged with “riot” would face more serious penalties if they were wearing a mask or other face covering with intent to conceal their identity, as compared to someone without a mask. The offense would be a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and $4,000, instead of a Class B misdemeanor. The crime of “riot” under Texas law is defined broadly and does not require violence or other unlawful conduct: The offense covers a group of seven demonstrators whose conduct “substantially obstructs law enforcement or other governmental function or services,” or whose “physical action deprives any person of a legal right or disturbs any person in the enjoyment of a legal right.” Under the bill, a protester who chose to wear a mask to avoid retaliation for their political views could face significant jail time if their nonviolent protest was deemed a “riot.”

Status: pending

Introduced 14 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): Face Covering, Riot

SB 2972: New restrictions on campus protests

Would force public colleges and universities to adopt new limitations on campus protests that among other things would ban protest encampments and limit protesters’ ability to wear a mask. Under the bill, public colleges and universities would have to enact policies that a) prohibit using sound amplification as part of any campus protest during class hours; b) prohibit any protest or other “expressive activities” between 10pm and 8am, or any time during the last two weeks of a school semester; c) prohibit erecting tents or otherwise “camping” on campus; and d) prohibit wearing masks while protesting with certain intent, including intent to “obstruct the enforcement of the institution’s rules or the law by avoiding identification.” The mandatory policy would also require students and employees to comply with any request by campus law enforcement to present proof of their identity if asked for any reason. The bill would require schools to create disciplinary sanctions for students or employees who violate the protest policy.

Status: pending

Introduced 14 Mar 2025; Approved by Senate 14 May 2025

Issue(s): Campus Protests, Face Covering, Camping

HB 3061: Heightened penalties for masked protesters

Would increase the penalty for protest-related offenses if committed by someone wearing a mask or other disguise to conceal their identity while “congregating with other individuals who were disguised or masked.” Under the bill, the penalty for trespass, “disorderly conduct,” and “riot” would be one degree more severe if committed by a group in which some individuals wore masks. The bill provides an exemption to the penalty enhancement for masks worn during Halloween, a masquerade ball, or “similar celebration,” but not for avoiding retaliation for political speech. “Disorderly conduct” and “riot” are broadly defined under Texas law. Protesters who make “unreasonable noise” in public, for instance, may be charged with “disorderly conduct”; under the bill, such protesters could face significant jail time rather than a fine if they were masked. “Trespass” in Texas also carries significant penalties if committed on college campuses, "critical infrastructure," or other select locations, such that peaceful protesters who trespassed on a college campus could face felony rather than misdemeanor penalties if they were masked to avoid retaliation.

Status: pending

Introduced 19 Feb 2025.

Issue(s): Campus Protests, Face Covering, Infrastructure, Riot, Trespass

SB 2593: New defense for police who injure protesters

Would create a new defense for police who recklessly injure or kill protesters with so-called “less lethal” projectile weapons. Under the bill, police could avoid prosecution for a range of charges—including assault; aggravated assault; injury to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual; and deadly conduct—for their use of projectile weapons like rubber bullets. The defense would apply as long as the officer was acting in the course of their official duties and did not intend to cause serious injury or death. As such, the bill would make it extremely difficult to convict an on-duty officer who recklessly blinds a child protester or kills an elderly demonstrator with a projectile weapon. Similar defenses in Texas’s Penal Code, by contrast, require that the person who used force must have had a reasonable belief that such force was necessary. By not including such a requirement, the bill could encourage police officers’ reckless use of “less lethal” projectile weapons against protesters and others. The bill is written to apply retroactively, and critics have pointed out that at the time of its introduction, 22 indicted police officers were awaiting trial in Texas based on their reckless use of “less lethal” projectile weapons during racial justice protests in 2020.

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 3 Apr 2023; Approved by Senate April 26, 2023

Issue(s): Police Response

HB 3599: New potential felony penalties for "terroristic" protests

Would create a new felony offense, "threatened terroristic violence," that could cover peaceful protesters. Under the bill, a person commits the offense if she "threatens to commit" any crime involving violence to property or persons, with a particular intent, including the intent to "influence the conduct or activities" of a government entity. Without a requirement that the "threat" convey a serious intention to imminently commit an unlawful act of violence, the offense could cover protected speech by peaceful protesters who are seeking policy change or other governmental redress. The offense would be a third degree felony, punishable by at least 2 and up to 10 years in prison. The bill incorporates the offense into other parts of Texas law as well, including the Education Code, creating the potential for student protesters to face disciplinary action based on their commission in protest activity deemed to be a "threatened terroristic violence." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 10 Mar 2021.

Issue(s): Campus Protests, Terrorism

HB 2747: Heightened penalties for "riot"

Would make knowingly participating in a "riot" a state jail felony, rather than a Class B misdemeanor. "Riot" is defined under current law as a gathering of at least seven people "resulting in conduct" that either creates a danger of property damage or injury, "substantially obstructs" a government function or services, or deprives or disturbs someone in their enjoyment of a legal right. As such, an individual may be guilty of participating in a "riot" without actually engaging in or even intending any destructive or disruptive conduct. A state jail felony is punishable by up to two years in prison and a $10,000 fine. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 3 Mar 2021.

Issue(s): Riot

SB 912 / HB 3652: New restitution penalty for those convicted of "riot"

Would require a person convicted of participation in a "riot" to pay restitution for "any damage to or loss" of property by reimbursing the property owner. The bill does not limit the restitution to damage directly caused by the defendant. As a result, a peaceful protester could be forced to pay to replace or restore property that was damaged by someone else in a large protest that authorities deemed a "riot." Current Texas law broadly defines a "riot" as a gathering of at least seven people "resulting in conduct" that either creates a danger of property damage or injury, "substantially obstructs" a government function or services, or deprives or disturbs someone in their enjoyment of a legal right.

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 2 Mar 2021; Approved by Senate 27 April 2021

Issue(s): Riot

HB 2461: Heightened penalties for "riot"-related offenses

Would elevate the penalty for certain offenses, including "criminal trespass" or "criminal mischief," if an individual who committed the offenses was also participating in a "riot" at the time. Current Texas law defines "riot" such that an individual may be guilty of participating in a "riot" without individually engaging in or even intending any destructive or disruptive conduct. As a result, under the bill, a peaceful protester who trespasses onto government or private property, or who "makes markings, including inscriptions, slogans, drawings, or paintings" on the property of another, could face a felony sentence rather than a Class A misdemeanor. The bill also provides that individuals charged with "riot" and those whom a police officer attests were engaged in "riot" (even if they were not charged with that offence) may not be released on bail except in the discretion of the court hearing their case. Such individuals would be lumped together with those charged with murder, aggravated sexual assault, and other severe crimes, who are currently subject to the same limitation. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 1 Mar 2021.

Issue(s): Riot, Trespass

HB 2150: New penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would increase the penalty for knowingly or recklessly obstructing a sidewalk, street, or highway, or an entrance or hallway to a building that the public has access to, from a Class B misdemeanor to a felony in the third degree, punishable by two to ten years in jail. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 23 Feb 2021.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

SB 2229: New penalties for protests near critical infrastructure

Would revise criminal trespass and mischief law in Texas such that individuals and organizations involved in protests on infrastructure sites could be subject to harsh new penalties. The bill would create a new offense of trespass on critical infrastructure "with the intent to either damage, destroy, deface or tamper with" or the intent to "impede or inhibit the operations" of a facility. Accordingly, protesters who sought to peacefully demonstrate on a posted infrastructure facility such as a pipeline, with the intent to disrupt its operations, could be prosecuted. The offense would be a state jail felony punishable by one year in jail and a fine of up to $10,000. The bill would also newly criminalize critical infrastructure mischief, defined to include defacing an infrastructure facility, and make it a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison and a $100,000 fine. Under the bill, an organization found guilty of either offense would be subject to a fine of ten times the maximum fine imposed on an individual--i.e., $100,000 for trespass, and $1,000,000 for mischief. The bill would expand the current definition of "critical infrastructure" under Texas law to include not only facilities that are completely enclosed by fencing but also property that is posted with signs that are "reasonably likely" to be seen. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 8 Mar 2019.

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure, Trespass

HB 2100: Mandatory sanctions for campus protesters

Would create mandatory disciplinary sanctions that could be applied to peaceful protesters on college and university campuses. The bill was amended after it was introduced, to require public colleges and universities to adopt a policy establishing disciplinary sanctions for students or student groups who "materially and substantially interfere with the rights of others to engage in, observe, or listen to expressive activities on campus." "Materially and substantially interfere" is not defined. According to the requisite policy, any student found to have twice interfered with another's "expressive activities," for instance through a protest, must be suspended for at least one semester. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 8 Mar 2019; Approved by House 30 April 2019

Issue(s): Campus Protests

HB 250: Eliminating driver liability for hitting protesters

Would eliminate civil liability for the driver of an automobile who hits or otherwise injures a person who was participating in a protest or demonstration that blocked traffic, if the driver was exercising "due care." The driver may still be civilly liable if his action was grossly negligent. Bill 250 expired with the end of the 2017 legislative session. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 20 Jul 2017.

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Traffic Interference