US Protest Law Tracker

The US Protest Law Tracker follows state and federal legislation introduced since January 2017 that restricts the right to peaceful assembly. For more information, visit our Analysis of US Anti-Protest Bills page.

45 states have
considered
307 bills
49 enacted 21 pending

No initiatives
Pending, defeated or expired initiatives
Enacted initiatives

Legislation

Latest updates: Oct. 2, 2024 (New Jersey), Aug. 22, 2024 (Mississippi, US Federal), Aug. 1, 2024 (US Federal)
Filter by:
Locations
Status
Issues
Date

Locations

Status

Issues

Introduction Date

from

to

Type

or
X

330 entries matching in provided filters in 45 states and 1 federal. Clear all filters
US Federal

HR 9158: Revoking visas of foreign student protesters

Would require an institution of higher education to immediately report to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) if a student holding a J-1 or F-1 nonimmigrant visa “has participated in activity in support of, or as an endorsement of, a foreign terrorist organization.” The Secretary of State shall revoke the visa if such participation is established and DHS shall initiate removal proceedings. The sponsors of the bill stated that it was in response to Pro-Palestine protests on college campuses and elsewhere in the United States.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 1 Aug 2024.

Issue(s): Campus Protests

return to map
US Federal

S 4756 / HR 9117: Revoking visas and deporting foreign protesters


Would immediately cancel the visa of any alien convicted of a crime related to “conduct at and during the course of a protest that occurs at an institution of higher education” or at a facility operated by a religious institution; involving the defacement, vandalism, or destruction of a federal memorial or monument; or involving the intentional obstruction of any highway, road, bridge, or tunnel. Any alien who is convicted for one of these crimes shall be removed from the U.S. within 60 days of their conviction.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 24 Jul 2024.

Issue(s): Campus Protests, Traffic Interference

return to map
US Federal

HR 9102: Barring Student Protesters from Federal Student Loans


Would ban “a student who is convicted of a hate crime under State of Federal law for conduct that occurred during a protest at an institution of higher education that disrupts the normal campus functions” from receiving a federal student loan or participating in a federal student loan forgiveness program. The bill defines hate crime to include a federal hate crime under section 18 U.SC. 249, but does not define other federal or state hate crimes that would also be covered. As such, if a state enacted a hate crime law that included nonviolent conduct a conviction under that state law that could trigger the ban on federal student loan assistance under the bill.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 23 Jul 2024.

Issue(s): Campus Protests, Limit on Public Benefits

return to map
US Federal

HR 8883: Potential penalties for universities based on protest policies

Would make federal accreditation of colleges and universities—and thus their access to federal funds—contingent on the institution’s policies on responding to protests. Under the “No Tax Dollars for College Encampments Act of 2024,” universities would have to regularly disclose how they respond to campus “incidents of civil disturbance,” defined to include “a demonstration, riot, or strike,” and their accreditation would be linked to such policies and practices. The bill sponsor cited encampments and other campus demonstrations by protesters for Palestinian human rights as motivation for the bill.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 28 Jun 2024.

Issue(s): Campus Protests, Riot, Limit on Public Benefits

return to map
US Federal

HR 8823: Withholding federal funds from states that do not punish street protesters

Would enable the federal government to withhold highway funding from states that allow protests on highways and other public roads. The bill would direct the Secretary of Transportation to withhold 10 percent of a state’s allocated federal highway funds each year, unless the Secretary could certify that the state had made “reasonable efforts” to prohibit individuals from “knowingly and recklessly obstructing” transportation on Federal-aid highways, which make up roughly one-quarter of all public roads in the U.S. Under the bill, the Secretary would have sole and unbounded discretion to make such a certification. The bill sponsor indicated that the bill is “a direct response to the increasing trend of unlawful traffic-obstructing protests.”

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 25 Jun 2024.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference, Limit on Public Benefits

return to map
US Federal

HR 8468: BARRING STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR CAMPUS PROTESTERS

Would disqualify certain campus protesters from federal student loan forgiveness programs. Under the bill, a student or faculty member who is expelled or fired from a higher education institution for a protest-related reason is not eligible for any loan forgiveness program under federal law. Covered reasons for expulsion or firing comprise “creating a public disturbance,” “disorderly conduct,” “trespassing,” “hate crime,” and violating provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 related to discrimination. The bill’s sponsor cited pro-Palestine demonstrations on college campuses as motivation for the legislation.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 21 May 2024.

Issue(s): Campus Protests, Trespass, Limit on Public Benefits

return to map
US Federal

S 4295: Barring federal funds for universities that don’t clear protest camps

Would bar federal funding for colleges and universities that fail to remove prolonged protest encampments. Under the “Encampments or Endowments Act,” if the Secretary of Education determined that a university permitted a protest encampment on campus for more than seven days, and camp participants had “attempted to interfere with a core function of the institution of higher education” or “obstructed the ingress or egress of students,” then the university would be ineligible to receive federal financial assistance for five years. The barred assistance would include institutional as well as student aid such as Pell grants and federal loans. Disqualified schools would have to provide grant-based aid to students to make up for the federal aid they would have otherwise received, and if they failed to do so, they would have to pay a tax equal to 50 percent of their endowment’s assets. The sponsor cited nationwide campus protests for Palestinian human rights as the motivation for the bill.  

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 9 May 2024.

Issue(s): Campus Protests, Camping, Limit on Public Benefits

return to map
US Federal

S 4302: Barring federal financial aid for students convicted of protest-related offenses

Would prohibit federal financial aid for students who are convicted of protest-related offenses while participating in a campus protest. The prohibition on federal financial aid under the “No Higher education Assistance for Mobs of Antisemitic and terrorist Sympathizing Students (No HAMAS) Act" would apply to students who are convicted under federal or state law of trespassing, unlawful assembly, rioting, or damaging property while protesting at a college or university. Such students would be ineligible for any federal grant, loan, or work study assistance. The sponsor and cosponsors of the bill have pointed to nationwide campus protests for Palestinian human rights as their motivation, however the legislation could cover students who are convicted of nonviolent offenses such as trespass while demonstrating for any cause while on a college or university campus.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 9 May 2024.

Issue(s): Campus Protests, Riot, Trespass, Limit on Public Benefits

return to map
US Federal

HR 8322: Revoking visas of foreign student protesters

Would revoke the F, J, or M student visas of students who are “arrested for rioting or unlawful protest,” or “arrested while establishing, participating in, or promoting an encampment” at an institute of higher education. The bill’s sponsor cited foreign students who have participated in campus protests for Palestinian human rights. 

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 8 May 2024.

Issue(s): Campus Protests, Riot, Camping

return to map
US Federal

HR 8321: Mandatory community service in Gaza for campus protesters

Would require anyone convicted of “unlawful activity” on a college or university campus “after October 7, 2023,” to be “assigned” to the Gaza Strip “for the purpose of providing community service” for a minimum of six months. While the bill would apply to individuals convicted of “unlawful activity”, the sponsor indicated that the bill is targeting individuals involved in pro-Palestine demonstrations and encampments on college campuses.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 8 May 2024.

Issue(s): Campus Protests

return to map
US Federal

HR 8248: Harsh penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

Would reintroduce the “Unmasking Antifa Act”--first introduced in 2018--which would make it a federal crime, subject to a lengthy prison sentence, to wear a mask or other disguise while protesting in a "threatening" or "intimidating" way. Under the act, anyone who "injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates any person" while "in disguise, including while wearing a mask" could be sentenced to up to 15 years in prison as well as fined. The bill explicitly exempts police and other law enforcement agents, stating that "nothing in this section shall be construed so as to deter any law enforcement officer from lawfully carrying out the duties of his office." While the bill title refers to unmasking "Antifa," the sponsor of the reintroduced bill has focused on pro-Palestine protesters, many of whom have worn masks to protect themselves from doxxing and other forms of retaliation. 

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 6 May 2024.

Issue(s): Face Covering

return to map
US Federal

S 4240 / HR 8242: Barring student loan forgiveness for campus protesters

Would bar federal student loan forgiveness for individuals convicted of protest-related offenses on a college or university campus. The “No Bailouts for Campus Criminals Act” would exclude an individual from the federal government’s forgiveness, cancellation, or modification of a student loan if they are convicted of “any offense” under federal or state law “related to” the individual’s conduct at a protest occurring at an institution of higher education. As such, if adopted, individuals convicted of even minor, nonviolent state law offenses such as trespass or unlawful assembly would be ineligible for loan forgiveness. Congressional sponsors of the bill cited nationwide campus protests related to Israel’s military campaign in Gaza as impetus for the legislation.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 2 May 2024.

Issue(s): Campus Protests, Limit on Public Benefits

return to map
US Federal

HR 8221: Deportation of foreigners charged with crimes related to protests

Would provide for the deportation of a foreign individual “charged” with “any crime” related to their participation in “pro-terrorism or antisemitism rallies or demonstrations.” Under the bill, a foreign individual merely charged—not necessarily convicted—with an offense as minor as a misdemeanor could face deportation if the offense was “related” to their participation in a protest deemed “pro-terrorism or antisemiti[c]" in nature. The sponsor of the bill, titled “Hamas Supporters Have No Home Here Act,” cited the involvement of foreign students in campus protests against Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 1 May 2024.

Issue(s): Campus Protests

return to map
US Federal

S 3887: Heightened penalties for riot offenses

Would significantly increase the penalties for federal “riot” and “incitement to riot” offenses if they involve property damage or injury. The bill would create a new, mandatory one-year prison sentence for anyone who commits “an act of violence” or aids someone else in doing so, while participating in, organizing, “inciting,” “promoting,” or “encouraging” a “riot.” The maximum penalty would jump to 10, instead of 5, years in prison. Federal law defines “act of violence” broadly to include using force against property—or just attempting or threatening to use such force. Under the bill, someone who knocked over a trash can, or merely threatened to do so, while cheering on an unruly protest, could face 10 years in prison.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 6 Mar 2024.

Issue(s): Riot

return to map
US Federal

S 3492 / HR 6926: Federal penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would create federal penalties for protesters who block public roads and highways. The “Safe and Open Streets Act” would make it a federal crime to “in any way or degree, purposely obstruct, delay, or affect commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce by blocking a public road or highway.” The offense would also cover individuals who merely “attempt” or “conspire” to block a public road or highway. The offense would be punishable by an unspecified fine and up to 5 years in federal prison.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Dec 2023.

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

return to map
US Federal

S 4825: Penalties for protesters on interstate highways

Would prohibit “deliberately delaying traffic,” “standing or approaching a motor vehicle,” or “endangering the safe movement of a motor vehicle” on an interstate highway “with the intent to obstruct the free, convenient, and normal use of the interstate highway.” The new federal offense would be punishable by up to $10,000 and 15 years in prison—a far harsher penalty than is the case under many states' laws, which generally already criminalize walking or standing on the highway. The bill provides an exception for “any lawful activity” authorized by federal, state, or local law. However it could still seemingly cover far more than “blocking” the interstate, including a peaceful protest on the shoulder of an interstate or a convoy-style, driving protest that slowed down traffic.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 13 Sep 2022.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
US Federal

HR 6653: Barring small business aid to individuals convicted of "riot" offenses

Would bar individuals convicted of “riot” offenses from receiving small business assistance from the federal government. The bill provides that a person convicted of a felony for actions during or “in connection with” a riot is prohibited from participating in any program run by the Small Business Administration, if the riot resulted in the destruction of a small business. The definition of “riot” under federal law is broad, requiring only a “public disturbance” where one individual in a group commits violence. An individual can be convicted of participating or inciting a “riot” based on conduct that was neither violent nor destructive. A host of actions of peaceful civil disobedience could also be construed as felonies “in connection with” a “riot.” Under the bill, individuals convicted of such offenses would become ineligible for support such as disaster relief loans, loans to avert hardship caused by COVID-19, and other small business assistance. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Feb 2022.

Issue(s): Riot, Limit on Public Benefits

return to map
US Federal

HR 289: Stripping Pandemic Aid from Individuals Convicted of "Protest-Related" Federal Crimes

Would withdraw COVID-19 unemployment benefits from and impose new costs on anyone convicted of a federal offense related to the individual's conduct at and during a protest. Such a person would be ineligible for federal unemployment aid under the CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9023) or any other Federal supplemental unemployment compensation during the COVID-19 public health emergency. If federal agents were involved in policing the protest at issue, the person who was convicted of a related federal offense would also have to pay the cost of the agents' policing activity, as determined by the court. Federal offenses include both violations of federal law, and violations of state law that occur on federal property. As such, the bill's withdrawal of benefits and imposition of new costs could apply to, e.g., a peaceful protester convicted of misdemeanor trespass for refusing to leave a demonstration on the steps of a federal courthouse or a sit-in at a congressional office. This bill is nearly identical to HB 8117 introduced in 2020. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 13 Jan 2021.

Issue(s): Security Costs, Limit on Public Benefits

return to map
US Federal

HR 8117: Stripping Pandemic Aid from Individuals Convicted of "Protest-Related" Federal Crimes

Would withdraw COVID-19 unemployment benefits from and impose new costs on anyone convicted of a federal offense related to the individual's conduct at and during a protest. Such a person would be ineligible for federal unemployment aid under the CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9023) or any other Federal supplemental unemployment compensation during the COVID-19 public health emergency. If federal agents were involved in policing the protest at issue, the person who was convicted of a related federal offense would also have to pay the cost of the agents' policing activity, as determined by the court. Federal offenses include both violations of federal law, and violations of state law that occur on federal property. As such, the bill's withdrawal of benefits and imposition of new costs could apply to, e.g., a peaceful protester convicted of misdemeanor trespass for refusing to leave a demonstration on the steps of a federal courthouse or a sit-in at a congressional office. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 28 Aug 2020.

Issue(s): Security Costs, Limit on Public Benefits

return to map
US Federal

S 4424: Withhold Federal Funding for Failure to Prosecute Destructive Protest Activities

Would empower the U.S. Attorney General to withhold up to 10% of select federal funding from a state prosecutor's office, district attorney's office, or state attorney general office, if the U.S. Attorney General determines that the office has "abused the use of prosecutorial discretion by failing to prosecute crimes stemming from riots or other violent or destructive protest activities." Many riot statutes in the U.S. are broadly worded and can encompass non-violent protest activity. In the past, peaceful protesters have been prosecuted under these statutes. This bill could encourage an aggressive interpretation of riot statutes as well as other laws that could be used against peaceful demonstrators. On September 17, 2020, HR 8301 was introduced in the House of Representatives, which has nearly identical language to S 4424. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 4 Aug 2020.

Issue(s): Riot

return to map
US Federal

S 4266 / HR 7786: Withhold Federal Funding for Failure to Either Prosecute or Properly Police a Riot

Would empower the U.S. Attorney General to withhold select federal funding if the Attorney General determines that a state or local government has a "custom or policy" of not prosecuting an individual engaged in unlawful activity as part of a "riot" or if they decline to prosecute because the "unlawful activity is related to or associated with expression of speech protected by the First Amendment". The U.S. Attorney General can also withhold select federal funding if a senior official, governing body, or policy prohibits law enforcement from taking action that would prevent or mitigate physical injury or property depredation related to a riot. The U.S. Attorney General could withhold up to 25% of select federal funding or twice the monetary value of property damaged or physical injury caused by the failure of the state or local government to take "reasonable steps" to protect against damage and injury. The bill also would create liability for "a person with the lawful authority to direct a law enforcement agency" to prohibit law enforcement from taking action that would prevent or materially mitigate significant injury or property destruction related to a riot. The bill defines "riot" using the broad federal definition. Such broadly worded riot provisions have been used to prosecute peaceful protesters in the past. This bill may pressure law enforcement to police assemblies aggressively to ensure that their policing practices are not second-guessed by the federal government resulting in loss of funding or because doing otherwise might open them up to civil litigation. The bill could also lead to the aggressive interpretation of riot statutes against peaceful protesters by prosecutors so as not to risk losing federal funding. 

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 22 Jul 2020.

Issue(s): Police Response, Riot, State Liability

return to map
US Federal

DOT Legislative Proposal: New federal criminal penalties for protests near pipelines

In its proposed congressional reauthorization of pipeline safety programs, the Department of Transportation included expanded criminal penalties that could be applied to protests near gas and oil pipelines. The proposal would newly criminalize under federal law "vandalizing, tampering with, impeding the operation of, disrupting the operation of, or inhibiting the operation of" a pipeline or a pipeline construction site. The offense would be punishable by up to 20 years in prison, and/or a steep fine: up to $250,000 for an individual, or $500,000 for an organization. Any "attempt" or "conspiracy" to commit the offense would likewise be subject to a 20-year prison sentence. Accordingly, individuals as well as organizations that participate in a protest or engage in the planning of a protest deemed to "inhibit" a pipeline construction site could face lengthy prison sentences and/or steep fines. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 3 Jun 2019.

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure

return to map
US Federal

HR 6054: Harsh penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

The "Unmask Antifa Act of 2018" would make it a federal crime, subject to a lengthy prison sentence, to wear a mask or other disguise while protesting in a "threatening" or "intimidating" way. Under the act, anyone who "injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates any person" while "in disguise, including while wearing a mask" could be sentenced to up to 15 years in prison as well as fined. The bill explicitly exempts police and other law enforcement agents, stating that "nothing in this section shall be construed so as to deter any law enforcement officer from lawfully carrying out the duties of his office." The name of the bill, introduced by Republican Rep. Daniel Donovan and supported by Reps. Peter King, Ted Budd, and Paul Gosar, refers to the leftist anti-Fascist movement, some members of which have worn masks during protests. The bill expired with the close of the 115th Congress on January 3, 2019. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 8 Jun 2018.

Issue(s): Face Covering

return to map
Alabama

SB 17 / HB 21: New Penalties for Protests Near Gas and Oil Pipelines

Expands the definition of "critical infrastructure" under Alabama law to include pipelines and mining operations. Individuals are prohibited from unauthorized entry onto critical infrastructure, defined as intentionally entering a posted area of critical infrastructure; the offense is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $6,000. The law also expands the definition of "person" to include nonprofits, creating the possibility that nonprofits who provide support or organizing for environmental protests near critical infrastructure where individuals then trespass could face organizational liability. Under the law, if a person interrupts or interferes with the operations of critical infrastructure, they would additionally be guilty of a Class C felony, punishable by at least one and up to ten years in prison. The draft law was pre-filed for the 2022 legislative session in September 2021. It is nearly identical to HB 516 introduced in 2021. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 11 Jan 2022; Approved by Senate 1 February 2022; Approved by House 10 February 2022; Signed by Governor Ivey 15 February 2022

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

return to map
Alabama

SB 152: New controls on protest locations and costs for protest organizers

Allows municipalities in Lauderdale County to control where protesters may gather, and charge them expansive fees for a permit. Under the law, municipalities may prohibit spontaneous protests in public forums by requiring protesters to obtain permits in certain circumstances, including if the demonstration "will involve more than a certain number of individuals participating, as established by the municipality." The law also allows municipalities to charge protester organizers a permit fee that includes "the actual cost of cleanup," "the actual cost of the use of law enforcement officers," and "any other actual administrative cost incurred by the municipality."

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 21 Feb 2021; Approved by Senate 16 March 2021; Approved by House 13 April 2021; Signed by Governor Ivey 27 April 2021

Issue(s): Security Costs

return to map
Alabama

SB 115: EXPANDED DEFINITION OF "RIOT," "INCITEMENT TO RIOT," AND NEW PENALTIES FOR PROTESTERS WHO BLOCK TRAFFIC

Would redefine "riot" under Alabama law as an "assemblage of five or more" people which results in "conduct which creates an immediate danger of damage to property or injury to persons." This definition is broad enough to cover many peaceful protests, as well as other gatherings, where law enforcement merely perceives a danger of property damage. Current Alabama law, by contrast, requires that a person individually engage in "violent conduct" as part of a group in order to have committed "riot." Under the bill, it is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail and a $6,000 fine, to intentionally participate in a "riot" after receiving an order to disperse by law enforcement or when in violation of curfew. The bill provides that if any injuries or property damage exceeding $2,500 occur, then anyone participating in the group is guilty of "aggravated riot," a new Class C felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, even if that individual participant did not contribute to the injury or property damage. The bill expands the current definition of "incitement to riot" under Alabama law to include a person who "funds" or "otherwise aids or abets" another person to engage in a "riot." Given the bill's broad definition of "riot," the redefined definition of "incitement" could cover people only tangentially associated with a protest, such as individuals who hand out bottles of water to protesters. The bill provides that a person convicted of "riot" or "incitement to riot" must serve a minimum of 30 days without option for parole. They must also pay restitution including "the cost of any damage to property", which could presumably include damage caused by other people. The bill creates a new offense of unlawful traffic interference for anyone who "intentionally or recklessly impedes vehicular traffic by walking, standing, sitting, kneeling, lying, or placing an object" in a way that blocks passage of a vehicle on a public or interstate highway. The first offense is a Class A misdemeanor and a second offence (or if property is damaged or someone is injured) is a Class C felony, punishable by up to 5 years in jail. Finally, the bill requires that any locality that defunds a law enforcement agency is no longer eligible for any type of state funding unless they can prove fiscal or practical necessity. This bill is close to identical to the version of HB 445 that passed the House in March of 2021, but did not advance further in the 2021 legislative session

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 18 Jan 2022.

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

return to map
Alabama

HB 2 / SB 3: EXPANDED DEFINITION OF "RIOT," "INCITEMENT TO RIOT," AND NEW PENALTIES FOR PROTESTERS WHO BLOCK TRAFFIC

Would redefine "riot" under Alabama law as an "assemblage of five or more" people which results in "conduct which creates an immediate danger of damage to property or injury to persons." This definition is broad enough to cover many peaceful protests, as well as other gatherings, where law enforcement merely perceives a danger of property damage. Current Alabama law, by contrast, requires that a person individually engage in "violent conduct" as part of a group in order to have committed "riot." It is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by one year in jail and a $6,000 fine, to intentionally participate in a riot after receiving an order to disperse by law enforcement or when in violation of curfew. The bill provides that if any injuries or property damage exceeding $2500 occur, then anyone participating in the group is guilty of "aggravated riot," a new Class C felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, even if that individual participant did not contribute to the injury or property damage. The bill expands the current definition of "incitement to riot" under Alabama law to include a person who "solicits, incites, funds, urges" or "otherwise aids or abets" another person to engage in a "riot." Given the bill's broad definition of "riot," the redefined definition of "incitement" could cover people only tangentially associated with a protest, such as individuals who hand out bottles of water to protesters. The bill requires anyone charged with "riot," "inciting a riot," or "aggravated riot" to be held without bail for up to 24 hours pending a hearing; it also adds mandatory minimum prison sentences for "riot," "aggravated riot," and "incitement to riot," and requires that anyone convicted pay restitution for any property damage incurred by the "riot" as well as "any and all other losses suffered by any victim." The bill creates a new offense of unlawful traffic interference for anyone who intentionally or recklessly impedes traffic by walking, sitting, standing, kneeling, lying, or placing an object to impede the passage of a vehicle on a public or interstate highway. The first offense is a Class A misdemeanor and a second offence (or if property is damaged or someone is injured) is a Class C felony, punishable by up to 5 years in jail. Finally, the bill requires that any locality that defunds a law enforcement agency is no longer eligible for any type of state funding unless they can prove fiscal or practical necessity. This bill is close to identical to the version of HB 445 that passed the House in March of 2021, but did not advance further in the 2021 legislative session.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 11 Jan 2022; Approved by House 22 February 2022

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

return to map
Alabama

S 398: New penalties for "riot," "incitement to riot," and expanded "incitement to riot" definition

Would create a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 days for rioting without the possibility of parole and would require that someone convicted of rioting pay restitution for any property damage or costs for medical treatment of anyone injured during a riot. In Alabama a riot is an assemblage of five or more persons resulting in conduct that creates an immediate danger to property or injury to person. As such, a person engaged in peaceful protest could be convicted of rioting if others around them are judged to have created a danger to persons or property. The bill would also expand the state's incitement to riot provision creating a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 days for the crime of incitement to riot without the possibility of parole and would require that someone convicted of incitement pay restitution for any property damage or costs for medical treatment of anyone injured during a riot. Under Alabama law, incitement includes "urging" someone to riot, language that has been found unconstitutionally overbroad by federal courts. The bill would also expand incitement to include those who "fund" or otherwise aid or abet a person to engage in rioting. This language could create organizational liability for a group that organizes a peaceful protest that is later classified as a riot, even if no damage to property or violence occurs.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 20 Apr 2021.

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Riot

return to map
Alabama

HB 516: NEW PENALTIES FOR PROTESTS NEAR GAS AND OIL PIPELINES

Would create new criminal penalties for protesters on pipeline property. The bill expands the definition of "critical infrastructure" under Alabama law to include pipelines and mining operations. Alabama law currently prohibits unauthorized entry onto critical infrastructure, defined as intentionally entering a posted area of critical infrastructure; the offense is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $6,000. Under the bill, if a person interrupts or interferes with the operations of critical infrastructure, they would additionally be guilty of a Class C felony, punishable by at least one and up to 10 years in prison. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Mar 2021.

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass

return to map
Alabama

HB 445: Expanded definition of "riot," "incitement to riot," and new penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would redefine "riot" under Alabama law as a "tumultuous disturbance" in public by five or more assembled people, acting with common intent, that creates a "grave danger" of substantial property damage or serious injury or that "substantially obstructs" a government function. This definition is broad enough to cover loud but peaceful protests, as well as raucous tailgate parties. Current Alabama law, by contrast, requires that a person individually engage in "violent conduct" as part of a group in order to have committed "riot." Knowingly participating in a "riot" is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by one year in jail and a $6,000 fine. The bill provides that if any property damage or injuries occur, then anyone participating in the group is guilty of "aggravated riot," a new Class C felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The bill expands the current definition of "incitement to riot" under Alabama law to include a person who "funds" or "otherwise aids or abets" another person to engage in a "riot." Given the bill's broad definition of "riot," the redefined definition of "incitement" could cover people only tangentially associated with a protest, such as individuals who hand out bottles of water to protesters. The bill creates a rebuttable presumption against granting bail to anyone charged with "riot" or "aggravated riot;" it also adds mandatory minimum prison sentences for "riot," "aggravated riot," and "incitement to riot," and requires that anyone convicted pay restitution for any property damage incurred by the "riot." The bill creates a new offense of unlawful traffic interference for anyone who, with the intent to impede traffic, walks, sits, or lies to block passage of a vehicle on a public or interstate highway. The first offense is a Class A misdemeanor and a second offence (or if property is damaged or someone is injured) is a Class D felony, punishable by up to 5 years in jail.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 24 Feb 2021; Approved by House 18 March 2021

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

return to map
Alabama

SB 155: New justification for using deadly force near a "riot"

Would expand the instances in which a person may lawfully use deadly force, to include areas near a "riot." Under current Alabama law, a person may use deadly force on their property if they reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent someone from trespassing and either committing a violent act against the person, or arson. The bill would also allow a person to use deadly force to prevent trespass if there is an "active riot" within 500 feet of the premises and the person reasonably believes it is necessary to use such force to prevent criminal mischief or burglary. If enacted, the bill would increase the likelihood of violence if residents or business owners become alarmed by raucous but peaceful protests. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 2 Feb 2021.

Issue(s): Riot, Trespass, Stand Your Ground

return to map
Alabama

HB 133: Expanded definition of "riot" and "incitement to riot," and new penalties for protesters who deface monuments

Would redefine "riot" under Alabama law as a "tumultuous disturbance" in public by five or more assembled people, acting with common intent, that creates a "grave danger" of substantial property damage or serious injury or that "substantially obstructs" a government function. This definition is broad enough to cover loud but peaceful protests, as well as raucous tailgate parties. Current Alabama law, by contrast, requires that a person individually engage in "violent conduct" as part of a group in order to have committed "riot." Knowingly participating in a "riot" is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by one year in jail and a $6,000 fine. The bill provides that if any property damage or injuries occur, then anyone participating in the group is guilty of "aggravated riot," a new Class C felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The bill expands the current definition of "incitement to riot" under Alabama law to include a person who "funds" or "otherwise aids or abets" another person to engage in a "riot." Given the bill's broad definition of "riot," the redefined definition of "incitement" could cover people only tangentially associated with a protest, such as individuals who hand out bottles of water to protesters. The bill creates a rebuttable presumption against granting bail to anyone charged with "riot" or "aggravated riot;" it also adds mandatory minimum prison sentences for "riot," "aggravated riot," and "incitement to riot," and requires that anyone convicted pay restitution for any property damage incurred by the "riot." The bill would create a new Class D felony offense, punishable by up to 5 years in prison, for anyone who intentionally "mars, marks," or "defaces" a public monument, even if the marks are only "temporary." Doing so in the course of a "riot" or "unlawful assembly" would be a Class C felony. Under the bill, "riot," "aggravated riot," "incitement to riot," and "damaging a public monument," are all to be considered "violent offences" for the purpose of sentencing. Finally, the bill would disqualify anyone convicted of "riot," "aggravated riot," or "incitement to riot" from holding public office.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 26 Jan 2021.

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Riot

return to map
Alabama

SB 45: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines

Would amend existing state law to create new criminal penalties for conduct that may occur in the course of peaceful protests near oil or gas pipelines and other infrastructure facilities. Alabama already criminalizes trespass onto "critical infrastructure," pursuant to law passed in 2016. The bill would expand the law's definition of "critical infrastructure" to include "pipelines," such that a person who trespasses onto pipeline property could be charged with a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by one year in jail and a $6,000 fine. The bill would also create a new felony offense for any person who "injures," "interrupts or interferes with" critical infrastructure while trespassing. Such an act would be a Class C felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison and $15,000. HB 36 has similar provisions in the House and was introduced January 23, 2020. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 4 Feb 2020; Approved by Senate 12 March 2020

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass

return to map
Alabama

HB 94: Felony charges for disruptive protesters

Would make it a felony for a person to do something illegal to prevent "or attempt to prevent" a public speaking event. Accordingly, a protester who disrupts a public speech while committing another infraction (e.g. trespassing) could be charged with a Class B felony, punishable by up to 20 years in prison. Critics argue that the bill provides for disproportionately harsh penalties, and that its broad language would enable authorities to enforce it selectively. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Jan 2018.

return to map
Alaska

HB 386 / SB 255: New penalties for protesting in the street and other public places without a permit

Would introduce new criminal and civil penalties that could cover protesters who demonstrate in street and other public places without a permit. The bill creates a new offense of “obstruction of free passage in public places,” to apply if someone “knowingly renders a public place impassable or passable only with unreasonable inconvenience or hazard.” While it includes exceptions for “obstruction” authorized by a permit or otherwise authorized by the law or a person “in charge of” the premises, the new offense would clearly cover unpermitted protests—particularly large protests in public plazas, parks, streets or other places that might make it “unreasonably inconvenient” for other individuals or cars to pass. If the protest “substantially interferes” with someone’s access to a government building, or “interferes” with an emergency responder, the offense would be a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail and $25,000. In all other cases it would be a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by 90 days in jail and $2,000. In addition to criminal penalties, the bill creates expansive civil liability for protesters who block public places. A person “whose passage is obstructed” could sue a protester for $10,000 if their rights were infringed, $50,000 if their property was damaged, and $100,000 if they were personally injured – in addition to attorney’s fees and costs. Under the bill, civil liability extends to anyone who “directly or indirectly, by words or action, aids, encourages, or authorizes the conduct,” or “conspires” to engage in the conduct. It also extends to anyone outside the state of Alaska if they “knew or had reason to know” that their acts were likely to lead to the obstruction. Finally, the bill substantially increases the penalty for trespassing if it creates a substantial risk of physical injury, or “interferes with” an “emergency response.” First degree trespass, which includes entering onto property with intent to violate a law, would be a Class C felony in such cases, punishable by five years in prison and $50,000, rather than a Class A misdemeanor. As such, protesters who for instance enter onto private property to engage in peaceful civil disobedience could face felony penalties.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 21 Feb 2024.

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

return to map
Alaska

HB 295: Mandatory sanctions for campus protesters

Would create mandatory disciplinary sanctions that could be applied to peaceful protesters at the University of Alaska. The bill requires the University to adopt a policy prohibiting and subjecting to sanction any "protests or demonstrations that materially and substantially infringe on the rights of others to engage in or listen to expressive activity." Additionally, the bill requires administrators to suspend for at least one year or expel any student who is twice found "to have infringed on the expressive rights of another," such as through a protest of a campus speaker. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 24 Feb 2020.

Issue(s): Campus Protests

return to map
Arizona

SB 1073: Heightened penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would create a new felony offense that could cover protesters who demonstrate on highways and certain other public roads. Under the bill, protesters who intentionally interfere with passage on a highway, bridge, tunnel, or any road leading to an airport if there are 25 or more cars or people on it, after being verbally warned to desist, could be guilty of a Class 6 felony, punishable by up to 5.75 years in prison. Arizona law already provides serious misdemeanor penalties, which can include jail time, for offenses related to “recklessly interfer[ing]” with traffic by “creating an unreasonable inconvenience or hazard.” The bill’s sponsor said that protesters who blocked a bridge during their demonstration for a ceasefire in Gaza inspired his bill.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 16 Jan 2024; Approved by Senate 31 January 2024; Approved by House 26 March 2024; Vetoed by Governor Hobbs 2 April 2024

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Arizona

SB 1023: Vague ban on residential protests

Would amend Arizona’s law on residential picketing to criminalize demonstrations at an individual’s home that “a reasonable person” would find “harassing, annoying, or alarming”--regardless of demonstrators’ intent. Current law bans only demonstrations where the people demonstrating at someone’s home specifically intend “to harass, annoy, or alarm” another person. The vagueness of the “reasonable person” standard in the bill would make it difficult for protesters to know in advance what conduct was prohibited at protests in residential areas, and could also allow authorities to target disfavored protests.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 10 Jan 2023; Approved by Senate 21 February 2023

return to map
Arizona

HB 2059: Enhanced penalties for blocking traffic and other conduct during "riot" or "unlawful assembly," and new "aggravated riot" and "mob intimidation" offenses

Creates a new Class 6 felony for interfering with the passage of traffic while engaged in a “riot,” “aggravated riot,” or “unlawful assembly.” Arizona law defines "riot" and "unlawful assembly" broadly; "unlawful assembly" for instance includes merely being present at a gathering that includes two people who intend to engage in a "riot," and refusing to disperse. HB 2059 also broadens an existing Class 2 misdemeanor offense related to blocking traffic, to criminalize anyone who recklessly interferes with the “free, convenience and normal use” of any public thoroughfare. The bill creates a serious new felony, “aggravated riot,” that includes participation in a “riot” involving 25 people. The new offense would be a Class 3 felony, punishable by at least 2 and up to 25 years in prison. The bill would also increase the penalties for any unlawful conduct committed "in furtherance of a riot or an unlawful assembly." Under the bill's proposed penalty escalations, someone who commits a serious misdemeanor in a way deemed to be "furthering" an "unlawful assembly" could face felony penalties. The bill also creates a new offense of "mob intimidation," defined as gathering with two or more people and using or threatening to use force "to compel or induce, or attempt to compel or induce, another person to do or refrain from doing any act or to assume, abandon, or maintain a particular viewpoint against the person's will." The new offense would be a Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail. Finally, the bill provides that cities and towns have a duty to allow law enforcement to "respond appropriately" to protect property and people during riots and unlawful assemblies, and enables individuals to sue "for any damages" governing officials who breach that duty. If enacted, such provisions could deter local officials who might otherwise seek to limit aggressive law enforcement responses to protests.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Jan 2023.

Issue(s): Police Response, Riot, Traffic Interference, State Liability

return to map
Arizona

SB 1033: Enhanced penalties, new "mob intimidation" offense, and new liability for officials who restrain law enforcement

Would increase penalties for any offense committed "in furtherance of a riot or an unlawful assembly." Arizona law defines "riot" and "unlawful assembly" broadly; "unlawful assembly" for instance includes merely being present at a gathering that includes two people who intend to engage in a "riot," and refusing to disperse. Under the bill's proposed penalty escalations, someone who commits a serious misdemeanor in a way deemed to be "furthering" an "unlawful assembly" could face felony penalties. The bill also creates a new offense of "mob intimidation," defined as gathering with two or more people and using or threatening to use force "to compel or induce, or attempt to compel or induce, another person to do or refrain from doing any act or to assume, abandon, or maintain a particular viewpoint against the person's will." The new offense would be a Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail. Finally, the bill provides that cities and towns have a duty to allow law enforcement to "respond appropriately" to protect property and people during riots and unlawful assemblies, and enables individuals to sue "for any damages" governing officials who breach that duty. If enacted, such provisions could deter local officials who might otherwise seek to limit aggressive law enforcement responses to protests.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 22 Dec 2021; Prefiled for the 2022 session

Issue(s): Police Response, Riot, State Liability

return to map
Arizona

SB 1784: Heightened penalties for "riot," "unlawful assembly," and protests that block traffic

Would elevate the offence of "riot" from a Class 5 to a Class 4 felony, punishable by three years in prison. Arizona defines "riot" broadly under existing law, to include joining two or more other people and recklessly using or threatening to use force that "disturbs the public peace." The bill also increases the penalty for "interfering" with traffic on a public thoroughfare while engaged in an "unlawful assembly" or "riot." The offense, which is otherwise a misdemeanor, would be a Class 6 felony punishable by up to two year in prison. Finally, the bill requires that anyone convicted of "unlawful assembly," a Class 1 misdemeanor, pay "at least" $500 in fines. Arizona law defines "unlawful assembly" as joining a group of two or more people with intent to engage in conduct constituting "riot," or being present at such a group, knowingly remaining, and refusing to disperse. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 3 Feb 2021.

Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference

return to map
Arizona

HB 2485: New Penalties for "Violent Or Disorderly Assembly" and for Protesters Who Block Traffic or "Deface" Monuments

Would create a broad new felony offense, "violent or disorderly assembly," for any person who joins a group of six or more people knowing that the group has one of a number of objectives; these include creating "an immediate danger" of property damage or personal injury; "substantially obstructing" government services; or "disturbing any person in the enjoyment of a legal right" if one person in the group then commits an "overt act" that furthers any of those objectives. The broad definition only requires action by one person in a protest; individuals could be charged with "violent or disorderly assembly" without doing anything other than gathering. The new offense is a Class 6 felony, punishable by one year in prison. The bill instates a mandatory, 12-hour detention for anyone arrested for the "violent or disorderly assembly," and requires that anyone convicted of the offense be barred from receiving any public benefits "including welfare or scholarships" or employment by a state or local entity. The bill makes "obstructing" a street or highway a Class 6 felony if it occurs while committing "violent or disorderly assembly." The bill would similarly heighten the penalty for unintentional property damage occurring during a protest, providing that "reckless" damage to property in the amount of $250-$1,000 is a Class 6 felony if it occurs while committing "violent or disorderly assembly." Using fireworks, "defacing" a monument or other public memorial, or being "indecent" or "offensive to the senses," are all elevated to a Class 6 felony if done while committing "violent or disorderly assembly." The bill would also add "violent or disorderly assembly" to the underlying crimes for Arizona's anti-racketeering statute. As a result, an participating in or being near a protest that is deemed a "violent or disorderly assembly" could lead to prosecution on felony racketeering charges. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 22 Jan 2021.

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Traffic Interference, Limit on Public Benefits

return to map
Arizona

HB 2309: New penalties for "violent or disorderly assembly" and for protesters who block traffic or "deface" monuments

Would create a new felony offense, "violent or disorderly assembly," for any person who causes any property damage or personal injury with a group of seven other people, with the intent to engage in a "riot" or an "unlawful assembly." The new offense is a Class 6 felony, punishable by one year in jail. The bill instates a mandatory, 12-hour detention for anyone arrested for the "violent or disorderly assembly," and requires that anyone convicted of the offense be barred from obtaining public benefits or employment by a state or local entity. The bill would heighten the penalty for protesters who "recklessly interfere" with traffic on any "public thoroughfare," or who, after receiving a warning, intentionally interfere with and prevent access to a government meeting or political campaign event. The bill provides that such interference is a Class 6 felony if it occurs while committing "violent or disorderly assembly." The bill would similarly heighten the penalty for unintentional property damage occurring during a protest, providing that "reckless" damage to property in the amount of $250-$1,000 is a Class 6 felony if it occurs while committing "violent or disorderly assembly." Likewise, using fireworks, or "defacing" a monument or other public memorial are both elevated to a Class 6 felony if done while committing "violent or disorderly assembly." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 15 Jan 2021; Approved by House 3 March 2021

Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference, Limit on Public Benefits

return to map
Arizona

SB 1033: Felony penalty for protesters who conceal their identity

Would heighten the penalties for an individual convicted of participating in an unlawful assembly or a riot, if the individual "obscures or hides the person's identity with a mask, disguise, makeup, or other device" during the event. Under the bill, conviction for unlawful assembly (a Class 1 misdemeanor) would become a Class 6 felony if committed while wearing a mask, punishable by up to two years in prison. Conviction for riot (a Class 5 felony) would become a Class 4 felony if committed while wearing a mask and subject to up to four years in prison. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 13 Dec 2017.

Issue(s): Face Covering, Riot

return to map
Arizona

SB 1142: Expanded definition of "riot"

Would have substantially broadened the definition of "riot," from the reckless use or threat of force that disturbs the public peace, to such use or threat of force that either disturbs the public peace or causes property damage. Under the bill, organizers and protesters could be charged as conspirators, and bystanders could be held liable if they witness someone declare an intention to start a riot. The bill also adds "riot" to the list of offenses included under racketeering law, such that participating in or being near a riot could lead to prosecution on felony racketeering charges. The bill provides that prosecutors may seize a person's assets under civil forfeiture laws in addition to filing enhanced felony criminal charges. After the bill's approval by the Arizona Senate on February 22, 2017, the House of Representatives rejected the bill. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 19 Jan 2017; Approved by Senate on 22 Feb 2017; House consideration denied 28 Feb 2017

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Riot

return to map
Arizona

HB 2007: Harsh penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

**HB 2007 was signed into law following amendments that removed the most restrictive provisions.** As originally introduced in the House, the bill made it a felony to wear any kind of disguise at a protest. The introduced bill broadly prohibited disguises, "whether partial or complete," that an individual wore at a protest, political event, or any other public event in order "to evade or escape discovery, recognition or identification." Under the introduced bill, police would have had authority to detain any individual wearing a disguise in order to verify his or her identity and determine if the person had committed a crime; violation of the disguise ban would have been a Class 6 felony, subject to one year in prison. The sponsor of the bill said it was inspired by clashes between police and protesters, some of whom were masked, outside a 2017 rally for President Trump. Following widespread criticism, the bill was comprehensively revised to a single provision that would allow courts to consider it an aggravating factor, for sentencing purposes, if an individual wore a mask or other disguise to hide their face while committing a criminal offense. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted with improvements

Introduced 21 Nov 2017; Governor Ducey signed it 23 March 2018 but the most problematic provisions were defeated.

Issue(s): Face Covering

return to map
Arkansas

HB 1508: New penalties for protesters who block traffic, "riot", or damage monuments

As enacted, the law increases the penalty for obstructing a "public passage", from a Class C to a Class A misdemeanor. As such, an individual in a protest that makes a sidewalk "impassable to pedestrian... traffic" could face up to one year in jail. The law also creates a new mandatory minimum sentence of 30 days in jail for "rioting", and requires restitution for any injury or damage as a result of the offense. Rioting is defined in Arkansas to include engaging with two or more persons in "tumultuous" conduct that creates a "substantial risk" of "public alarm." The law requires that a person convicted of inciting a riot likewise pay restitution for any injury or damage as a result of the offense. The law provides that the state Attorney General may initiate an investigation into cases of riot, inciting riot, and obstructing a highway or other public passage. Finally, the law amends the definition of "act of terrorism" under Arkansas law, to include any act that causes "substantial damage" to a public "monument." It is not clear whether graffiti or other painting applied to a monument as part of a protest could comprise a terrorist act under the new law.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 22 Feb 2021; Approved by House 19 April 2021; Approved by Senate 22 April 2021; Signed by Governor Hutchinson 29 April 2021

Issue(s): Riot, Terrorism, Traffic Interference

return to map
Arkansas

HB 1321: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines

Introduces harsh new penalties for protestors around gas and oil pipelines and other "critical infrastructure." The law broadly defines "critical infrastructure" to include a range of posted or fenced-off areas associated with natural gas and crude oil production, storage, and distribution, including above and below ground pipelines as well as pipeline construction sites and equipment. Under the law, purposely entering or remaining on any "critical infrastructure" is a Class D felony, punishable by up to 6 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Separately, the law provides that trespassing on property outside of a city or town, regardless of whether it is posted, is a Class D felony if the property is "critical infrastructure." In nearly all other cases, trespass is a misdemeanor or minor violation. The law also creates a felony offense for anyone who purposely and unlawfully "causes damage" to critical infrastructure. Any amount of "damage," which the law does not define is a Class B felony under the law, punishable by 20 years in prison and a $15,000 fine. Under the law, protesters who hold a peaceful sit-in at a pipeline construction site and paint protest slogans on construction material, for instance, could face lengthy prison sentences. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 27 Jan 2021; Approved by House 9 March 2021; Approved by Senate 1 April 2021; Signed by Governor Hutchinson 14 April 2021

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass

return to map
Arkansas

HB 1578: Expanded Civil Liability for Those Who Incite a Riot and Criminal Penalties for Obstructing First Responders

Creates a civil cause of action for a person who is injured or has property damaged as a "direct or indirect" result of a "riot" against a person who commits "riot" or a person or entity who incites a riot. Arkansas law defines both "riot" and "incitement" broadly, creating potential liability for protesters or organizations who are interpreted to have urged others to have engaged in tumultuous or violent conduct. 

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 17 Feb 2017; Passed by House 2 March 2017; Passed by Senate 27 March 2017; Signed by Governor 6 April 2017.

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

return to map
Arkansas

HB 1898: Heightened penalties for protests that block roads

Would create the offense of "aggravated disorderly conduct," defined to include "recklessly creating a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm" by "obstruct[ing] the free use of public roads, streets, highways, airports, or other rights-of-way of travel." The offense would be a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $2,500. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 20 Mar 2019; Died on House Calendar at sine die adjournment 24 April 2019

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Arkansas

SB 118: Criminal penalties for school and university campus protesters

Would create a new criminal sanction that could be applied to peaceful protesters on public university as well as high school grounds. The bill contains 17 broadly-worded "guarantees of free speech," including a provision that "a student shall not significantly obstruct the freedom of other speakers" to state their own views on campus. The bill provides that anyone who negligently violates any of the "rights" provided for in the bill is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, which in Arkansas is punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of $2,500. Accordingly, a student who was deemed to have "significantly obstructed" the speech of a controversial campus speaker, for example, could be charged with a serious misdemeanor. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 17 Jan 2019.

Issue(s): Campus Protests

return to map
Arkansas

AB 550: Criminalizing "unlawful mass picketing"

Would have introduced a new crime, "unlawful mass picketing." Under the bill, picketing or demonstrating near a private establishment, business, or school would be illegal if it obstructs the entrance to a place of employment or blocks use of roads, railways, or airports. Commission of unlawful mass picketing would be a Class A misdemeanor, subject to up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $2,500. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 2 Mar 2017; Approved by Senate 13 March 2017; Approved by House 29 March 2017; Vetoed by Governor Hutchinson 6 April 2017

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
California

AB 1358: New restrictions on campus protests

Would impose new limits on protests at public and private institutions of higher education. The bill would require all institutions of higher education in the state to adopt a policy prohibiting protests and demonstrations that "material and substantially infringe upon the rights of others to engage in or listen to expressive activity" and make protesters involved in such assemblies "subject to sanction." As a result, protests in public areas of campus that, for instance, made it difficult to hear a speech, would be banned and its participants liable to penalties. This behavior would be subject to a "range of disciplinary sanctions," including "suspensions, firings, and expulsions." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 22 Feb 2019.

Issue(s): Campus Protests

return to map
Colorado

SB18-264: Barring teachers from protesting in support of a teachers' strike

Would have prohibited public school teachers from participating in protests that supported a teachers' strike. The bill broadly bans all public school teachers from "directly or indirectly" "inducing, instigating," or "encouraging" a strike "against any public school employer." Accordingly, teachers that were not participating in a strike could be barred from participating in a protest or demonstration deemed to "indirectly" "encourage[]" the strike, even outside of school hours. The bill provides that any teacher who is "convicted of violating" the bill's provisions, including its ban on direct or indirect support of strikes, is to be "immediately terminate[d]" by their public school employer; that he or she is not entitled to a hearing or judicial review of the termination; and that he or she is barred from public school employment for one year following termination. Lawmakers introduced the bill as teachers across the state threatened to go on strike for higher wages and increased education funding. After the bill received immediate, widespread criticism in the days following its introduction, a Senate committee voted to postpone it indefinitely, and its sponsors said they would withdraw it. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 20 Apr 2018.

Issue(s):

return to map
Colorado

SB 17-035: Heightened penalties for protesting near oil and gas equipment

Would have substantially increased penalties for environmental protesters. Under the bill, obstructing or tampering with oil and gas equipment is reclassified from a misdemeanor to a Class 6 felony, punishable by up to 18 months in prison and a fine of up to $100,000. The bill's language broadly includes anyone who "attempts to alter, obstruct, interrupt, or interfere with the action of any equipment used or associated with oil or gas gathering operations." In addition to imposing much steeper penalties on anyone engaging in such activity, the bill also provides that oil and gas firms (or any other "victim" of tampering) may pursue separate claims against a protester who is also being prosecuted by the state. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 11 Jan 2017; Approved by Senate 28 March 2017; Failed in House committee 12 April 2017

Issue(s): Infrastructure

return to map
Connecticut

HB 6455: New penalty for protests that disturb the legislature

Would make it a Class D felony, punishable by at least one and up to 5 years in prison a $5,000 fine, to disrupt, disturb, or interfere with any proceeding of the General Assembly by making unreasonable noise, performing an act that disturbs or disrupts the proceeding, refusing to comply with an order of the police, or engaging in violent, tumultuous, or threatening behavior or language. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 11 Feb 2021.

return to map
Florida

HB 275 / SB 340: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines

Creates a new felony offense for trespassing that could cover some protests near pipelines and other infrastructure that do not involve actual property damage. The law broadly defines “critical infrastructure” to include above or belowground pipelines, as well as a range of other gas, electricity, water, mining, and telecommunications facilities. Under the law, entering onto critical infrastructure property with notice that such entrace was prohibited is a 3rd degree felony offense. As such, protesters who cause no damage but merely enter onto posted property that contains a pipeline in the course of their protest could face felony charges and up to 5 years in prison if convicted. By contrast, trespassing onto private property is generally a 2nd degree misdemeanor, punishable by at most 60 days in jail. The House bill as originally also created an overbroad “improper tampering” felony offense, which would have included any unauthorized action to “change…the physical condition of the property or any portion thereof,” or to “knowingly and intentionally… deface” critical infrastructure property, but these provisions were removed by amendment.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 25 Oct 2023; Approved by House 22 February 2024; Approved by Senate 28 February 2024; Signed by Governor DeSantis 17 May 2024

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass

return to map
Florida

HB 1435/SB 1954: Charging protest organizers for the costs of responding to a protest

Would allow local authorities to require protest organizers to pay for "all relevant costs and fees associated with designating and enforcing" the zone established for a "special event," "including, but not limited to, costs and fees for the provision of supplemental law enforcement and sanitation services." While the bill's sponsors indicate that it was motivated by large, disruptive "pop-up" gatherings of cars like the "Daytona Truck Meet," it is written broadly enough to cover street protests and demonstrations. The bill defines a "special event" as an "unpermitted temporary activity or event organized or promoted via a social media platform" which is attended by 50 or more persons and substantially increases or disrupts the normal flow of traffic on a roadway, street, or highway." The bill also authorizes law enforcement to "enforce occupancy limits" in "special event zones"; which if applied to protests could allow police could limit the number of protest participants in a certain area. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 10 Jan 2022; Approved by House 2 March 2022; Approved by Senate 4 March 2022; Approved by Governor DeSantis 26 May 2022

Issue(s): Security Costs

return to map
Florida

HB 1/SB 484: Expanded definition of "riot" and new penalties for protesters

**Note: Provisions of HB1 related to the law's new definition of "riot" were preliminarily enjoined by a federal district judge on September 9, 2021, temporarily blocking enforcement of those provisions.**


Enlarges the legal definition of "riot," a 3rd degree felony, to include any group of three or more individuals whose shared intent to engage in disorderly and violent conduct results in "imminent danger" of property damage or personal injury, or actual damage or injury. Notably, the new definition does not require that the individuals' conduct be disorderly or violent, or that they commit any actual damage or injury. Under the new law, a "riot" consisting of 25 or more people, or one that "endangers the safe movement of a vehicle," is automatically an "aggravated riot," a new 2nd degree felony offense under the law. As such, large groups of protesters or ones that block traffic, even temporarily, could face up to 15 years in prison. Under the new law, "inciting" someone to participate in a riot is a 3rd degree felony, punishable by 5 years in prison. The law also creates a new criminal offense of "mob intimidation," defined as a group of three or more people who act with a "common intent" to compel "or attempt to compel" another person to "do or refrain from doing any act," or "assume, abandon, or maintain a particular viewpoint" against their will. The offense is a first degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail. The law creates a new 3rd degree felony offense, punishable by up to 5 years in prison, for anyone who "willfully and maliciously defaces, injures, or otherwise damages by any means" statues, flags, paintings, displays, or other "memorials" and the value of the damage is more than $200. As "deface" is not defined, protesters who apply paint or graffiti to a monument in the course of a peaceful protest could face up to 5 years in prison. The law may encourage violence against protesters by creating a new affirmative defense in civil lawsuits for personal injury, death, or property damage, such that a defendant can avoid liability by establishing that the injury, death, or damage they committed "arose from" conduct by someone "acting in furtherance of a riot." Finally, the law creates a new civil right of action against a municipal government that fails to "respond appropriately to protect persons and property during a riot or unlawful assembly," making them civilly liable for damages, including personal injury or property damage. These provisions may encourage municipal governments to adopt overly aggressive law enforcement responses to protests in order to avoid lawsuits.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 6 Jan 2021; Approved by House 26 March 2021; Approved by Senate 15 April 2021; Signed by Governor DeSantis 19 April 2021

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Driver Immunity, Police Response, Riot, Traffic Interference, State Liability, Stand Your Ground

return to map
Florida

HB 11/SB 1872: New Penalties for Disrupting Law Enforcement

Would make it a second-degree misdemeanor to stand within 30 feet of an officer performing a "legal duty" and to "directly or indirectly harass" the officer or "interrupt, disrupt, [or] hinder" them after being warned to not approach, punishable by up to 60 days in prison and a $500 fine. The bill's language is so vague and broad that it could easily capture peaceful protest activity. For example, if a group of demonstrators were told not to further approach a police line they could face liability even if they obey the order if they remained within 30 feet of an officer and their chanting or sloganeering was deemed to "indirectly harass" the officer. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 19 Jul 2021; Pre-Filed for the 2022 Legislative Session; Indefinitely postponed and withdrawn

return to map
Florida

SB 1096/HB 1419: Eliminating driver liability for hitting protesters

Would have criminalized the obstruction of traffic during an unpermitted protest or demonstration as a second degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to 60 days in prison and a $500 fine. The bill also eliminates civil liability for a driver who unintentionally injures or kills a protestor interfering with traffic during an unpermitted protest or demonstration. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 21 Feb 2017; Introduced 7 March 2017 in House; Failed in Senate committee 8 May 2017

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Traffic Interference

return to map
Georgia

SB 359: Expanded grounds for RICO charges against protesters

Would enable Georgia’s RICO statute to cover far more protest-related activity—including even minor offenses like unlawfully posting protest signs or engaging in “disorderly conduct.” The bill would first amend Georgia law related to enhanced sentences for “crimes involving bias or prejudice.” It would expand the law’s current grounds for “bias”—intentional selection of a victim or group because of their “actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender, mental disability, or physical disability”—to include “political affiliation or beliefs.” The bill would also amend the law’s list of offenses subject to enhanced sentencing to include a number of offenses related to civil disobedience and protest, including “disorderly conduct,” “loitering,” and unlawful “placement of posters, signs, and advertisements.” (Criminal trespass is already included as a covered offense.) The mandatory enhanced penalties include up to 1 year in jail and $5,000 for a covered misdemeanor, and at least 2 years in prison and $5,000 for felonies. As such, protesters who merely post signs on public property without authorization, that are deemed to target another group’s political beliefs, would face a year in jail. Further, the bill would amend Georgia’s RICO statute to make any such offense—or an attempt to commit, or soliciting, coercing, or intimidating another person to commit such an offense—an offense that could be charged under RICO as a “pattern of racketeering activity.” Convictions under RICO carry severe penalties of up to 20 years in prison. The bill was introduced amidst RICO charges brought against dozens of protesters of Georgia’s planned police training facility, known as “Cop City.”

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 18 Jan 2024.

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders

return to map
Georgia

HB 505: Heightened penalties for "riot"

Would increase the penalty for “riot” from a misdemeanor to a felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison. Georgia law defines “riot” to include just two people who do anything “in a violent and tumultuous manner,” as well as those who carry out an unlawful act of violence. As such, the law can be used to prosecute demonstrators who did not personally engage in any violence. The law also does not require that a person act with intent. Under the bill, a demonstrator who unintentionally acts in a way that authorities deem “violent and tumultuous” could face felony arrest and up to 20 years in prison.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 21 Feb 2023; Approved by House 1 March 2023

Issue(s): Riot

return to map
Georgia

SB 171: Ban on spontaneous protests, heightened protest penalties, and an affirmative defense for drivers who hit protesters

Would prohibit protests on public property that have not received a permit, seemingly banning all spontaneous demonstrations. The bill requires local governments to create a permitting scheme for any protest, demonstration, or other assembly on public property. Street protests could face steep penalties under the bill, which makes it a felony to obstruct any street or highway as part of an "unlawful assembly" and refuse a police order to disperse. The offense would be punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. The bill also creates an affirmative defense for someone who injures or kills a protester who was obstructing traffic as part of an “unlawful assembly.” The defendant would need to establish that they were attempting to flee the assembly under the “reasonable belief” that they had to flee to avoid an “imminent attack.” The bill expands the state’s “racketeering” law to include committing, attempting to commit, or soliciting someone else to commit “any crime” “involving unlawful assemblies,” which could sweep up organizations that are involved in supporting or organizing protests. Racketeering is a felony punishable by up to 20 years in jail and a fine of up to $25,000. The bill creates a new felony offense of "defacing, defiling, or abusing contemptuously" a state-owned or maintained monument or other structure during an "unlawful assembly." The offense, which is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine, could seemingly apply to a protester who chalked a sidewalk near a monument during an assembly that was deemed to be "unlawful." The bill makes the governing authorities of a county or municipality civilly liable if they are “grossly negligent by allowing the commission of violence against persons and property” during an assembly. The bill also makes local authorities civilly liable for interfering with the ability of law enforcement agencies to provide “reasonable law enforcement” protection during an “unlawful assembly” or “riot.” These provisions make it more likely that cities and counties will aggressively police constitutionally-protected assemblies out of fear they might otherwise face liability if any property damage occurs. As introduced, the bill expanded the definition of "unlawful assembly" to include "two or more persons who harass or intimidate another person within any public accommodation"; this was later replaced by "two or more persons who convey any threat that is severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and specifically directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action." The original bill also barred anyone convicted of "unlawful assembly" from receiving state or local employment benefits; these provisions were removed by amendment.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 11 Feb 2021; Approved by Senate 15 March 2022

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Security Costs, Riot, State Liability, Limit on Public Benefits

return to map
Georgia

SB 1: Expanding definition of "domestic terrorism"

Would have broadened the definition of "domestic terrorism" under Georgia law to potentially include demonstrations, boycotts, and other forms of protest and political expression. Under the bill, the previously high bar for committing domestic terrorism of "harm caused to a group of 10 or more individuals" is lowered to include causing harm to at least one individual or disabling "critical infrastructure." The new target, "critical infrastructure" is in turn very broadly defined to include "public or private systems, functions or assets, whether physical or virtual, vital to the security, governance, public health and safety, economy, or morale of this state or the United States." The bill also introduces a new provision targeting actions that have a political or ideological component, such that domestic terrorism would include an action intended to advance "any ideology or belief," whether held individually or as part of a group. Commission of domestic terrorism as defined by the bill would be a felony punishable by prison sentences ranging from five years to life. Given the broad language of the bill and extreme penalties involved, rights leaders feared that it was aimed to monitor, punish, and chill free speech activities including protests. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 10 Jan 2017; Approved by Senate 1 March 2017; Failed in House 28 March 2017

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Terrorism

return to map
Georgia

SB 339: Mandatory sanctions for campus protesters

**SB 339 was signed into law following amendments that removed the most restrictive provisions.** As originally introduced, Senate Bill 339 would have created mandatory disciplinary sanctions that could be applied to peaceful protesters on college and university campuses. The introduced bill required public universities and community colleges to adopt a policy prohibiting and subjecting to sanction individuals involved in "protests or demonstrations that infringe upon the rights of others to engage in or listen to expressive activity" on campus. Additionally, the introduced bill required administrators to suspend for at least one year or expel any student who was twice "found responsible for infringing on the expressive rights of others," such as through a protest of a campus speaker. Amendments to the bill removed the provisions related to specific sanctions, prior to the bill's passage by the Senate. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted with improvements

Introduced 19 Jan 2018; Governor Deal signed it 8 May 2018

Issue(s): Campus Protests

return to map
Georgia

SB 160: Heightened penalties for blocking traffic

As introduced and passed by the Georgia Senate, the "Back the Badge" bill included heightened penalties for intentionally or recklessly blocking "any highway, street, sidewalk, or other passage." Accordingly, protesters and demonstrators peacefully obstructing a public sidewalk could have been charged with a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature, which under Georgia law is subject to up to a $5,000 fine or up to one year in jail. These provisions were removed, however, in the version of the bill approved by the House of Representatives and sent to the Governor on April 10, 2017. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted with improvements

Introduced 10 Apr 2017; Approved by Senate 24 Feb 2017; Approved by House 24 March 2017 without traffic-blocking provisions; Signed by Governor Deal 8 May 2017

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Idaho

HB 519: New penalties for protests near pipelines and other infrastructure

Would create new offenses for “trespassing” onto and “impeding” critical infrastructure that could cover nonviolent protesters near pipelines and other infrastructure, whether operational or under construction. The bill defines “critical infrastructure” to include a broad range of energy, water, communication and transportation facilities, regardless of whether they are fenced off or posted with no trespassing signs. Under the bill, someone commits critical infrastructure trespass who “knowingly and willfully enters or remains in a critical infrastructure facility or construction site.. without permission of the owner of the property or after notice is given to depart or not to trespass.” Because the definition of critical infrastructure is not limited to facilities that are fenced or posted, the trespass offense as written could cover a protester who is intentionally on a pipeline construction site even if they didn't know that they were trespassing and no notice was provided. The first offense is a misdemeanor (up to 6 months in jail and $1,000), but a second offense within 5 years is a felony (up to 10 years and $20,000). A person is guilty of the “impeding” offense if they “knowingly and intentionally impede the operations of a critical infrastructure facility” without authorization. “Impede” is defined to mean “to block the operation of or prevent legal access to” a CI facility or CI facility construction site; or to “damage, destroy, deface, or tamper with” a CI facility or its equipment. If the “impeding” results in damages of less than $10,000, the offense is a misdemeanor (up to 6 months in jail and $10,000), but if it results in damages of more than $10,000 the offense is a felony (up to 2 years and $100,000). As written, the “impeding” offense could cover e.g. protesters who block the road to a pipeline construction site. Under the bill, an individual or organization that “aids, abets, solicits, compensates, hires, conspires with, commands, or procures” someone to commit CI trespass or impeding, with the intent that the person complete the offense, is liable to a fine of up to $100,000. The bill also provides that critical infrastructure facilities can also sue individuals or organizations for damages, including damages for lost profits.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 8 Feb 2024.

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

return to map
Idaho

HB 167: NEW PENALTIES FOR PROTESTS NEAR PIPELINES, ROADWAYS, AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE

Would create new potential criminal liability for protesters who demonstrate near existing or planned oil and gas pipelines or other energy infrastructure, as well as bridges, highways, or other transportation infrastructure, by creating a new offense of “critical infrastructure trespass.” The offense requires that someone “knowingly and willfully enters or remains in a critical infrastructure facility or construction site of a critical infrastructure facility without permission of the owner of the property or after notice is given to depart or not to trespass.” As written, this would seemingly include a protester who is willfully and intentionally on a road or pipeline construction site even if they didn't know that they were actually trespassing and no notice was provided. The first offense is a misdemeanor (up to 6 months in jail and $1,000), but the second offense within 5 years is a felony (up to 10 years and $10,000). The bill extends potential criminal and civil liability to individuals and organizations associated with protesters who trespass onto pipeline property, as well. Under the bill, any individual or organization that “aids, abets, solicits, compensates, hires, conspires with, commands, or procures” someone to commit critical infrastructure trespass, with the intent that the person commit the offense, is subject to a fine of up to $100,000 fine and liable for a civil action by the infrastructure facility. “Critical infrastructure facility” is broadly defined as “any facility so vital to the state of Idaho… that the incapacity or destruction of such system or asset would have a debilitating impact on the state or national economic security, state or national public health or safety, or a combination of those matters,” including “but is not limited to” facilities in the energy sector as well as communications, transportation, and government facilities.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 20 Feb 2023.

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

return to map
Idaho

HB 147: NEW PENALTIES FOR PROTESTS NEAR PIPELINES, ROADWAYS, AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE

Would create new potential criminal liability for protesters who demonstrate near existing or planned oil and gas pipelines or other energy infrastructure, as well as bridges, highways, or other transportation infrastructure, by creating a new offense of “critical infrastructure trespass.” The offense requires that someone “knowingly and willfully enters or remains in a critical infrastructure facility or construction site of a critical infrastructure facility without permission of the owner of the property or after notice is given to depart or not to trespass.” As written, this would seemingly include a protester who is willfully and intentionally on a road or pipeline construction site even if they didn't know that they were actually trespassing and no notice was provided. The first offense is a misdemeanor (up to 6 months in jail and $1,000), but the second offense within 5 years is a felony (up to 10 years and $10,000). The bill extends potential criminal and civil liability to individuals and organizations associated with protesters who trespass onto pipeline property, as well. Under the bill, any individual or organization that “aids, abets, solicits, compensates, hires, conspires with, commands, or procures” someone to commit critical infrastructure trespass, with the intent that the person commit the offense, is subject to a fine of up to $100,000 fine and liable for a civil action by the infrastructure facility. “Critical infrastructure facility” is broadly defined as “any facility so vital to the state of Idaho… that the incapacity or destruction of such system or asset would have a debilitating impact on the state or national economic security, state or national public health or safety, or a combination of those matters,” including “but is not limited to” facilities in the energy sector as well as communications, transportation, and government facilities.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 14 Feb 2023.

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

return to map
Idaho

HB 148: NEW PENALTIES FOR PROTESTS NEAR PIPELINES, ROADWAYS, AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE

Would create new potential criminal liability for protesters who demonstrate near existing or planned oil and gas pipelines or other energy infrastructure, as well as bridges, highways, or other transportation infrastructure, by criminalizing acts that "impede" critical infrastructure facilities. The offense requires that someone knowingly and willfully “impedes the operations of a critical infrastructure facility or a construction site” of a facility without authorization. “Impede” is defined to include “prevent[ing] legal access] to” a facility or the construction of a facility. The offense is a misdemeanor (6 months and $1,000) if the damage or economic loss is less than $1,000, or a felony (10 years and the cost of the damage or economic loss) if the damage or loss is more than $1,000. As such, a protester who is willfully and intentionally blocking the road to a pipeline construction site or a bridge, they could face 10 years in prison if the resulting delays caused losses of more than $1,000. The bill extends potential criminal and civil liability to individuals and organizations associated with protesters who “impede” infrastructure, as well. Under the bill, any individual or organization that “aids, abets, solicits, compensates, hires, conspires with, commands, or procures” someone to impede critical infrastructure, with the intent that the person commit the offense, is subject to a fine of up to $100,000 fine and liable for a civil action by the infrastructure facility. “Critical infrastructure facility” is broadly defined as “any facility so vital to the state of Idaho… that the incapacity or destruction of such system or asset would have a debilitating impact on the state or national economic security, state or national public health or safety, or a combination of those matters,” including “but is not limited to” facilities in the energy sector as well as communications, transportation, and government facilities.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 14 Feb 2023.

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

return to map
Idaho

SB 1090: New penalties for protests near critical infrastructure

Would create new potential penalties for protests near oil or gas pipelines and other infrastructure facilities, including those under construction. The bill creates two new offenses: "critical infrastructure trespass," and "impeding critical infrastructure." Critical infrastructure trespass is defined in the bill as knowingly entering onto infrastructure property without authorization or not leaving once notified to depart; the bill classifies it as a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of $1,000. "Impeding" critical infrastructure is defined to include "preventing legal access to" a critical infrastructure property or construction site. Under the bill, such impediment is punishable by 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine if the impediment results in $1,000 worth of damage or economic loss. If the damage or loss is less than $1,000, the offense is punishable by six months imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. The bill also provides that an organization "that aids, abets, solicits, compensates, hires, conspires with, commands, or procures" someone to impede critical infrastructure is subject to a $100,000 fine and liable for a civil action by the infrastructure facility. "Critical infrastructure facility" is broadly defined and among many other things includes oil and gas pipelines, refineries, water treatment plants, cell phone towers, and railroad tracks -as well as "[a]ny facility included [above] that is lawfully permitted and under construction."

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 11 Feb 2019.

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

return to map
Illinois

HB 5819: New penalties for protests that block traffic

Would create a new felony offense for protests that block traffic on highways and other busy roadways for more than five minutes. Existing Illinois law already prohibits protests or other assemblies on roadways without a permit or other permission from law enforcement, and requires that such assemblies not obstruct pedestrian or car traffic “in an unreasonable manner;” violations are a Class A misdemeanor offense. Under the bill, blocking “an exceptionally busy public right-of-way” for more than five minutes in a way that prevents “or would prevent” passage of an emergency vehicle, is a Class 4 felony. As written, the felony offense applies regardless of whether an emergency vehicle was actually blocked, or whether the roadway was “exceptionally busy” at the time it was blocked. “Exceptionally busy public right-of-way” is defined as a public road that typically carries at least 24,000 cars daily. The bill would also newly preempt cities and counties from enforcing a more lenient rule related to protests and demonstrations on roadways.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 17 Apr 2024.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Illinois

HB 4746: NEW PENALTIES FOR PROTESTS NEAR CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Would create a new felony offense that could cover nonviolent protesters at pipeline and other infrastructure sites. Under the bill, someone who knowingly “vandalizes, defaces, tampers with” or damages part of a critical infrastructure facility commits a felony. If the “value of the property” (not the cost of the damage) is less than $500, the offense is a Class 4 felony, punishable by 1-3 years in prison and up to $20,000; if the property value is $500-$10,000, it is a Class 3 felony (2-5 years and $20,000); and if the property value exceeds $10,000, it is a Class 2 felony (3-7 years and $20,000). The bill newly defines "critical infrastructure facility" under Illinois law to include gas and oil pipelines and a range of pipeline-related facilities, as well as electric, water, telecommunications, railroad, and “health care” facilities, regardless of whether they are fenced off or clearly marked with signs. As such, a protester who chalked or spraypainted a pipeline without damaging its functionality could face felony charges and a lengthy prison sentence if convicted. The bill extends liability to anyone who “conspires with” a person to commit the offense. It also provides that critical infrastructure owners can sue for punitive and compensatory damages.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 5 Feb 2024.

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

return to map
Illinois

SB 3086: NEW PENALTIES FOR PROTESTS NEAR CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Would heighten the penalties for protests near oil and gas pipelines and other infrastructure that involve trespassing onto infrastructure property. Under the bill, knowingly entering or remaining on a "critical infrastructure facility" is a Class 4 felony, punishable by 1-3 years in prison and $25,000. Aggravated criminal trespass to a critical infrastructure facility--defined as trespass with "intent to damage, destroy, or tamper with equipment" in the facility--is a Class 3 felony punishable by 2-5 years and $25,000. The bill newly defines "critical infrastructure facility" under Illinois law to include gas and oil pipelines, including those under construction, and a range of pipeline-related facilities, as well as electric, water, telecommunications, and railroad facilities that are fenced off or posted. Nearly identical text was introduced as SB 3814 in the 2022 legislative session, and as SB 1312 in 2023.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 2 Feb 2024.

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass

return to map
Illinois

SB 1312 / HB 2362: NEW PENALTIES FOR PROTESTS NEAR CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Would heighten the penalties for protests near oil and gas pipelines and other infrastructure that involve trespassing onto infrastructure property. Under the bill, knowingly entering or remaining on a "critical infrastructure facility" is a Class 4 felony, punishable by 1-3 years in prison and $25,000. Aggravated criminal trespass to a critical infrastructure facility--defined as trespass with "intent to damage, destroy, or tamper with equipment" in the facility--is a Class 3 felony punishable by 2-5 years and $25,000. The bill newly defines "critical infrastructure facility" under Illinois law to include gas and oil pipelines, including those under construction, and a range of pipeline-related facilities, as well as electric, water, telecommunications, and railroad facilities that are fenced off or posted. Nearly identical text was introduced as SB 3814 in the 2022 legislative session.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 6 Feb 2023.

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass

return to map
Illinois

SB 3814: NEW PENALTIES FOR PROTESTS NEAR CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Would heighten the penalties for protests near oil and gas pipelines and other infrastructure that involve trespassing onto infrastructure property. Under the bill, knowingly entering or remaining on a "critical infrastructure facility" is a Class 4 felony, punishable by 1-3 years in prison and $25,000. Aggravated criminal trespass to a critical infrastructure facility--defined as trespass with "intent to damage, destroy, or tamper with equipment" in the facility--is a Class 3 felony punishable by 2-5 years and $25,000. The bill newly defines "critical infrastructure facility" under Illinois law to include gas and oil pipelines, including those under construction, and a range of pipeline-related facilities, as well as electric, water, telecommunications, and railroad facilities that are fenced off or posted.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 21 Jan 2022.

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass

return to map
Illinois

HB 3409: Mandatory sanctions for campus protesters

Would create mandatory disciplinary sanctions that could be applied to peaceful protesters at public universities or community colleges in the state. The bill requires these public educational institutions to adopt a policy prohibiting and subjecting to sanction any "protests and demonstrations that infringe upon the rights of others to engage in or listen to expressive activity." Additionally, the bill requires administrators to suspend for at least one year any student who is twice found to be responsible "for infringing on the expressive rights of others," such as through a protest of a campus speaker. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 22 Feb 2021.

Issue(s): Campus Protests

return to map
Illinois

HB 2280: Mandatory sanctions for campus protesters

Would create mandatory disciplinary sanctions that could be applied to peaceful protesters on college and university campuses. Like HB 2939, introduced in the 2017-2018 session, HB 2280 requires public universities and community colleges to adopt a policy prohibiting and subjecting to sanction any "protests or demonstrations that infringe upon the rights of others to engage in or listen to expressive activity" on campus. Additionally, the bill requires administrators to suspend for at least one year or expel any student who is twice "found responsible for infringing on the expressive rights of others," such as through a protest of a campus speaker. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 8 Feb 2019.

Issue(s): Campus Protests

return to map
Illinois

HB 1633: New penalties for protests near critical infrastructure

Would heighten the penalties for protests near oil and gas pipelines and other infrastructure that involve trespassing onto infrastructure property. Under the bill, knowingly trespassing to a critical infrastructure facility is a Class 4 felony, punishable by $1,000 and 1-3 years in prison. Aggravated criminal trespass to a critical infrastructure facility--defined as trespass with intent to vandalize, deface, or tamper with the facility--is a Class 3 felony punishable by $10,000 and 2-5 years in prison. The bill would also create a broadly-defined new offense, "criminal damage to a critical infrastructure facility," which includes knowingly vandalizing, defacing, or tampering with critical infrastructure and does not require actual damage. The offense is a Class 1 felony, punishable by $100,000 and 15 years in prison. An individual convicted of any of the offenses is also civilly liable for money damages, court costs, and attorney's fees to the owner of the property, for any damage sustained. The bill newly defines "critical infrastructure facility" under Illinois law to include a range of oil, gas, electric, water, telecommunications, and railroad facilities that are fenced off or posted. As introduced, the bill also provided that an organization found to have conspired with an individual to commit any of above offenses would be liable for a fine of at least ten times the minimum fine authorized for the individual, however these provisions were removed by an amendment.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 31 Jan 2019; Approved by House 11 April 2019

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

return to map
Illinois

HB 2939: Mandatory sanctions for campus protesters

Would create mandatory disciplinary sanctions that could be applied to peaceful protesters on college and university campuses. The bill requires public universities and community colleges to adopt a policy prohibiting and subjecting to sanction any "protests or demonstrations that infringe upon the rights of others to engage in or listen to expressive activity" on campus. Additionally, the bill requires administrators to suspend for at least one year or expel any student who is twice "found responsible for infringing on the expressive rights of others," such as through a protest of a campus speaker. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Feb 2017.

Issue(s): Campus Protests

return to map
Indiana

SB 471: New penalties for protests near critical infrastructure

Heightens the potential penalties for protests near oil and gas pipelines and other infrastructure by creating the offenses of "criminal infrastructure facility trespass" and "critical infrastructure facility mischief." The law provides that an individual who knowingly enters a critical infrastructure facility without permission commits critical infrastructure facility trespass, a Level 6 felony punishable by up to 30 months in prison. Under the law, recklessly or knowingly defacing such a facility constitutes critical infrastructure facility mischief, punishable by up to six years in prison as a Level 5 felony. In either case, the individual may additionally be liable to the property owner for damages, costs, and attorney's fees. An individual found to have conspired with someone who commits either offense may also be liable for a fine of $100,000. The law newly defines "critical infrastructure facility" under Indiana law to include a range of oil, gas, electric, water, telecommunications, and railroad facilities, as well as any "facility that is substantially similar" to one of the listed facilities. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 14 Jan 2019; Approved by Senate 7 Feb 2019; Approved by House 25 March 2019; Signed by Governor Holcomb on 6 May 2019

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure

return to map
Indiana

HB 1205: Expanded definition of "riot" and new criminal penalties for protesters

Would broaden the definition of "riot" and raise the penalty for riot in certain circumstances. Indiana law defines "rioting" as engaging in "tumultuous conduct" while a member of an "unlawful assembly." The bill expands the definition of "unlawful assembly," to require only 3 people engaged in "tumultuous conduct." The bill also amends the definition of "tumultuous conduct" to include conduct that results or is likely to result in the "obstruction of law enforcement or other governmental function." As a result of these changes, someone in a 3-person, peaceful protest whose conduct is deemed "likely" to interfere with a government hearing, for instance, could be covered by the resulting "riot" statute. The bill also heightens the penalty for "riot" from a Class A misdemeanor to a Level 6 felony, punishable by up to 2.5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine, if committed by a person wearing a mask (such as a medical mask) or other face covering. The bill requires a mandatory 30-day sentence and restitution as penalties for all riot offenses. The bill heightens the penalty for "disorderly conduct," a broadly defined offense that includes making "unreasonable noise," if committed by a person in the same area as a "lawful or unlawful demonstration, protest, or assembly." The offense would be a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail. The bill would heighten the penalty for a person who damages or "defaces" property, as well, from a Class B misdemeanor to a Level 6 felony if committed by someone in the same "area" as a demonstration or protest. "Defaces" is not defined, and could include chalk and other temporary markings applied in the course of a protest. The bill also bars 24-hour protests on the grounds outside the state capitol, by making it a Class A misdemeanor to"camp" in a number of places around the capitol building after being informed that camping is not allowed, either by signage or in person. "Camping" is defined as conduct between 10pm and 7am that includes laying down a blanket or using a piece of furniture. The bill would allow the state to seize any property that was used "to finance or facilitate the financing of a crime committed by a person while in an area where a lawful or unlawful demonstration, protest, or assembly was taking place." Finally, the bill would newly allow tort claims against government entities and officials for the failure to enforce the law "in connection with an unlawful assembly," if the failure constitutes "gross negligence"; provisions that, if enacted, could encourage municipal and other local governments to adopt overly aggressive law enforcement responses to protests in order to avoid lawsuits.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 14 Jan 2021.

Issue(s): Face Covering, Riot, Camping, State Liability

return to map
Indiana

SB 198: New penalties for funding protests, failing to leave an "unlawful assembly," and violating protest-related curfew

Would create a new Class A misdemeanor, "financing an unlawful assembly," punishable by up to one year in jail, for a person who gives funding or "anything of value" to another person, knowing that they intend to commit an offense while part of an "unlawful assembly" and intending to aid them. The offense is a Level 6 felony if the person provides funding for five or more people, and a Level 5 felony if the person provides funding for 10 or more people. Indiana law broadly defines "unlawful assembly" as an assembly of five or more persons whose common object is to commit an unlawful act, or a lawful act by unlawful means. A donor who provides funding or supplies to a group knowing that they intend to commit civil disobedience as part of an "unlawful assembly," could face felony charges and up to six years in prison. The bill also authorizes the government to seize property that is used to finance or "facilitate" the financing of a crime committed by a person while part of an "unlawful assembly." The bill creates a new Class B misdemeanor offense, "enabling riot," for anyone who is present during the commission of a felony by a participant in an "unlawful assembly," and who knows that the participant is committing a criminal offense, and fails to "immediately" either leave the location or report the offense to law enforcement. A journalist, for instance, who stays at the scene of a protest that is deemed an "unlawful assembly," and does not immediately report unlawful behavior could face six months in jail for "enabling riot." The bill newly authorizes the head of a county or city to declare a curfew upon receiving information about the "likelihood" of a "riot" or "unlawful assembly," and creates a new Class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail, for failure to abide by curfew orders. The bill expands the attorney general's concurrent jurisdiction with the prosecuting attorney to include prosecutions of any "criminal offense" committed by members of an "unlawful assembly." As a result, the Indiana attorney general would be able to bring charges against protesters if the relevant local prosecutor declined to do so. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 12 Jan 2021; Approved by Senate 16 February 2021

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Riot

return to map
Indiana

SB 96: Expanded definition of "riot" and ban on protest camps on state property

Would redefine "rioting" as three or more people who "recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally" engage in "tumultuous" conduct, punishable by a minimum of 30 days in jail and up to one year in prison. "Tumultuous" conduct includes conduct that obstructs law enforcement or other governmental functions, or that is likely to result in substantial damage to property or bodily injury. The offense does not require actual property damage or violence, and could cover a small peaceful group of protesters that momentarily blocks a government vehicle. The bill also makes it a class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail, to "camp" in a number of places around the state capitol building after being informed that camping is not allowed, either by signage or in person. Camping is defined as conduct between 10pm and 7am that includes laying down a blanket or placing a piece of furniture on state property. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 7 Jan 2021; Withdrawn on 25 January 2021

Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference, Camping

return to map
Indiana

SB 34: New penalties for unpermitted protests that block traffic, unlawful assemblies, and "riot" offenses

Would increase the penalty for obstructing pedestrian or vehicular traffic to a level 5 felony, punishable by up to six years in prison, if committed by "a person participating in a protest or demonstration" that is not authorized by a permit. The bill also newly penalizes as a class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to 1 year in jail, participants in an unlawful assembly in a place of public accommodation who make unreasonable noise and continue to do so after being asked to stop, or who disrupt a lawful gathering of persons. The bill enables the government to seize any "real or personal property" that is used to finance or facilitate a crime "including minor violations" committed by a person who is part of an unlawful assembly. It strips immunity from government officials who "fail to enforce the law in connection with an unlawful assembly, if the failure to enforce the law constitutes gross negligence," opening up government officials to civil suits if they do not aggressively police protests. The bill bans a person convicted of rioting from holding state government employment, including elected office, and bars a person convicted of rioting from receiving a broad range of state and local benefits, including healthcare and educational benefits. Rioting in Indiana is defined broadly as a person who, as part of an unlawful assembly, recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally engages in "tumultuous" conduct. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 4 Jan 2021.

Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference, State Liability, Limit on Public Benefits

return to map
Indiana

SB 78: Increased penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

Would enhance the penalty for a person who commits a "public order offense" while wearing a mask. Public order offenses include disorderly conduct, unlawful assembly, and rioting--generally all misdemeanors. The bill provides that if a person committed such an offense, the prosecutor may seek an additional prison term of up to 30 months if the state can prove that the person intentionally concealed their identity by wearing mask or other face covering. The same bill was initially introduced in January 2018 as SB 73. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 3 Jan 2019.

Issue(s): Face Covering, Riot

return to map
Indiana

SB 285: Heightened police response to protests that block traffic

As introduced, the bill would have allowed law enforcement officials to use "any means necessary" to break up public assemblies that obstructed traffic. The bill defines "mass traffic obstruction" as an obstruction of street or highway traffic by at least 10 people as part or result of a protest, riot, or other assembly. It provides that public officials were obliged within 15 minutes of learning of a mass traffic obstruction to dispatch all available law enforcement with directions to "use any means necessary" to clear the roads of the persons obstructing traffic. After extensive committee amendments softening the bill, the Indiana Senate voted on February 27, 2017 effectively to vacate it and instead create a study committee to examine what constitutes a "reasonable response" to mass traffic obstruction. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Jan 2017; Amended in committee 23 Feb 2017; Effectively vacated 27 Feb 2017

Issue(s): Police Response, Traffic Interference

return to map
Iowa

SF 342: Heightened penalties for protesters convicted of "riot," "unlawful assembly," or blocking traffic, and immunity for drivers who injure them

Introduces felony penalties for the offense of "riot," previously an aggravated misdemeanor, such that the offense is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and $7,500. Preexisting law defines "riot" as a group of three or more people assembled "in a violent manner," at least one of whom uses any unlawful force or violence against another person or causes property damage. The law also converts "unlawful assembly" from a simple to an aggravated misdemeanor. Preexisting law defines "unlawful assembly" as a group of three or more people, any of whom are acting "in a violent manner," and who intend that any of them will commit an offense. Under the law, it is a serious (rather than simple) misdemeanor, punishable by one year in jail and a $1,875 fine, to "obstruct" a sidewalk, street, or "other public way" with the intent to hinder its use by others. If an individual obstructs a sidewalk or street while "present during an unlawful assembly," it is an aggravated misdemeanor, punishable by 2 years in jail and a $6,250 fine. If an individual obstructs a sidewalk or street while "present during a riot," it is a Class D felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $7,500 fine. Under the law, a driver who injures someone who is participating in a "protest, demonstration, riot, or unlawful assembly," engaging in "disorderly conduct," and blocking traffic, is immune from civil liability as long as the driver was exercising "due care" and the protester did not have a permit to be in the street. The law would also allow law enforcement who experience a physical or other injury while on duty to pursue civil damages from a person, group, or organization. Finally, the law creates a new felony offense for "defacing" public property, "including a monument or statue." The offense, a Class D felony, is punishable by up to 5 years in prison, a $7,500, and mandatory restitution for any property damage. This law was introduced and passed by the Senate as SF 534, but passed by the House as an amendment to SF 342.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 1 Mar 2021; Approved by Senate 10 March 2021, Approved by House 14 April 2021, Signed by Governor 16 June 2021

Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Driver Immunity, Riot, Traffic Interference

return to map
Iowa

SSB 1140: Heightened penalties for "riot," "unlawful assembly," protests that block traffic, and defacing monuments

Would elevate "riot" from an aggravated misdemeanor to a Class D felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $7,500 fine. Iowa law defines "riot" as a group of three or more people assembled "in a violent manner," at least one of whom uses any unlawful force or violence against another person, or causes property damage. The bill would also elevate "unlawful assembly" from a simple misdemeanor to an aggravated misdemeanor, punishable by up to two years in jail and a $6,250 fine. Iowa law defines "unlawful assembly" as a group of three or more people, any of whom are acting "in a violent manner," and who intend that any of them will commit an offense. Under the bill, it is a serious (rather than simple) misdemeanor, punishable by one year in jail and a $1,875 fine, to "obstruct" a sidewalk, street, or "other public way" with the intent to hinder its use by others. If an individual obstructs a sidewalk or street while "present during an unlawful assembly," it is an aggravated misdemeanor, punishable by 2 years in jail and a $6,250 fine. If an individual obstructs a sidewalk or street while "present during a riot," it is a Class D felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $7,500 fine. The bill also creates a new felony offense for intentionally defacing or altering public property, "including a monument or statue." The offense is a Class D felony. The bill provides that a sentence for the offense must include restitution for any damage to the property.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 2 Feb 2021.

Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference

return to map
Iowa

HF 251: New penalties for protesters, including those who block roads, and immunity for drivers who injure them

Would create a new felony offense of "violent or disorderly assembly" that could cover peaceful protesters. The offense is defined to include a group of seven or more people that creates an immediate danger of property damage or personal injury, or that "substantially obstructs" government functions or services. Joining or remaining part of a "violent or disorderly assembly" is a Class D felony, punishable by at least one and up to five years in prison. If an individual traveled from another state to participate in a "violent or disorderly assembly," it is a Class C felony, punishable by at least two and up to 10 years in prison. The bill provides for the termination of any state or local government employee who is convicted of engaging in a "violent or disorderly assembly." The bill raises the penalty for unauthorized obstruction of any street, sidewalk, highway, or other public way, with intent to prevent or hinder its use by others. The bill changes the offense from a minor to a serious misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail. Under the bill, if the obstruction takes place during an "unlawful assembly," it is an aggravated misdemeanor, punishable by up to two years in jail. Iowa law defines "unlawful assembly" as a group of three or more people, at least one of whom is acting violently, gathered with intent that at least one of them will commit an infraction. If the obstruction takes place during a "riot," it is a Class D felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Iowa defines "riot" as a group of three or more people assembled "in a violent manner" that "disturb[s]" other people, with any unlawful force by anyone in the group. The bill also creates new penalties for a person who performs any act "related to organizing, scheduling, or otherwise assembling" a group of people, knowing or with reason to know that they will intentionally obstruct a highway. Such a person is guilty of an aggravated misdemeanor, punishable by up to two years in jail. The bill establishes civil immunity for a driver who injures someone participating in an unpermitted protest or demonstration who is blocking a street or highway, as long as the driver was exercising "due care." The bill would create a new felony offense for protesters who "damage," "deface," or otherwise "alter" any public property, including a public monument. "Deface" is not defined, and could include temporary chalk messages. The offense would be a Class C felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 27 Jan 2021.

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

return to map
Iowa

HF 430: Heightened penalties for protesters who block streets and sidewalks

Would raise the penalty for protesters who obstruct any street, sidewalk, highway, or other public way, with intent to prevent or hinder its use by others. The bill changes the offense from a minor to a serious misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail. Under the bill, if the obstruction takes place during an "unlawful assembly," it is an aggravated misdemeanor, punishable by up to two years in jail. Iowa law defines "unlawful assembly" as a group of three or more people, at least one of whom is acting violently, gathered with intent that at least one of them will commit an infraction. If the obstruction takes place during a "riot," it is a Class D felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Iowa defines "riot" as a group of three or more people assembled "in a violent manner" that "disturb[s]" other people, with any unlawful force by anyone in the group. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 26 Jan 2021.

Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference

return to map
Iowa

SB 286: Heightened penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would prohibit persons from standing on Iowa highways with the intention of blocking traffic. The bill, which sponsors say is designed to target disruptive highway protests, provides that a person "shall not loiter, or place or cause to be placed any obstruction" on a highway "with the intention of blocking the normal and reasonable movement of motor vehicle traffic." Individuals who do so may be charged with a serious misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,875 fine. A second offense is an aggravated misdemeanor, punishable by up to two years' imprisonment and a $6,250 fine; a third offense is a Class D felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $7,500 fine. The bill was originally introduced in March 2017 as SF 426. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 2 Mar 2017; reintroduced 18 February 2019

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Kansas

SB 172: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines

Creates four new criminal offenses that could capture the conduct of peaceful protesters near pipelines. Under the law, entering or remaining in a "critical infrastructure" facility, or on property containing such a facility if it is posted with signs or fenced off, is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $2,500 fine. Trespassing with intent to "tamper with" a critical infrastructure facility, or to "impede or inhibit" its operations, is a Level 7 felony, punishable by approximately 2 years in prison. Actually, knowingly "tampering with" the facility is a Level 6 felony, punishable by approximately 3 years in prison, and doing so with the intent to impede or inhibit the facility's operations is a Level 5 felony, punishable by approximately 4 years in prison. The law also creates a broad new definition of critical infrastructure," which includes among many other things "a portion of any belowground or aboveground oil, gas, hazardous liquid or chemical pipeline" or any storage, processing, or distribution facility for crude oil or natural gas. When it was introduced, the law included new penalties for "defacing" and "vandalizing" critical infrastructure; civil liability for any person or "entity" that provided compensation to someone to commit the offenses described above; and added the trespass and damage offenses above to the underlying crimes that could be prosecuted under the state's RICO law. These provisions were removed prior to the law's enactment. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 8 Feb 2021; Approved by Senate 2 March 2021; Approved by House 30 March 2021; Signed by Governor Kelly 9 April 2021

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

return to map
Kansas

HB 2285: Mandatory Sanctions for Campus Protesters

Would create mandatory disciplinary sanctions that could be applied to peaceful protesters at community colleges, technical colleges, and municipal universities in the state of Kansas. The bill requires these institutions to adopt a policy prohibiting and subjecting to sanction any "protests or demonstrations that materially and substantially infringe upon the rights of others to engage in or listen to expressive activity." Additionally, the bill requires administrators to suspend for at least one year or expel any student who has "twice been found responsible for infringing on the expressive rights of others" such as during a protest of a campus speaker. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Feb 2021; Died in committee 23 May 2022

Issue(s): Campus Protests

return to map
Kansas

HB 2612: New penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

Would create the crime of concealing one's identity during a public demonstration. The bill provides that wearing a mask, hood, or any other device that "covers any portion of the face to conceal the identity of the wearer" while participating in a public demonstration or protest would be a Class A misdemeanor, if done to intimidate another person or while engaged in any unlawful activity. Accordingly, a protester whose identity was masked by a facial covering and who committed some other infraction could be sentenced to a year in jail or a fine of up to $2,500, or both. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 2 Feb 2018; Died in committee 4 May 2018

Issue(s): Face Covering

return to map
Kentucky

HB 44: New penalties for protests near pipelines and other infrastructure

Creates new potential criminal and civil penalties for protests around oil or gas pipelines and other infrastructure facilities. Like HB 238, introduced in the 2019 session, HB 44 amends the definition of "key infrastructure assets" under Kentucky law to include "natural gas or petroleum pipelines." Encompassed facilities and properties designated "key infrastructure assets" are not limited to areas that are fenced off or posted by "no entry" signs. Trespass onto "key infrastructure assets" is a Class B misdemeanor for the first offense (up to three months in jail) and a Class A misdemeanor for subsequent offenses (up to one year in jail). As introduced, the bill created a new offense for a person who "intentionally or wantonly... tampers with, impedes, or inhibits operations of a key infrastructure asset." This conduct would comprise "criminal mischief in the first degree"--a Class D felony, which under Kentucky law can be punished by up to five years in prison. A protest that "impeded" access to a pipeline by blocking a road, or one that "inhibited" the operation of a pipeline by blocking pipeline construction, could presumably have fallen under this definition. Prior to the law's enactment, lawmakers removed the language penalizing activity that "impeded" or "inhibited" operations of infrastructure like a pipeline. The enacted version instead penalizes "tamper[ing] with the operations of a key infrastructure asset... in a manner that renders the operations harmful or dangerous." The introduced bill also provided that any "person" (which under Kentucky law could include an organization) may be civilly liable if they "knowingly compensate[] or remunerate[]" another person to commit criminal mischief on a key infrastructure asset. Prior to enactment, this was narrowed to anyone who "knowingly directs or causes a person" to commit the tampering offense.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 29 Aug 2019; Prefiled as BR 204 on 29 August 2019; Approved by House 10 February 2020; Approved by Senate 5 March 2020; Signed by Governor Beshear on 16 March 2020

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

return to map
Kentucky

HB 626: New penalties for protesters at the statehouse

Creates two new criminal offenses that could cover organizers and participants of peaceful protests at the Kentucky statehouse. Under the bill, a person commits first degree “interference with a legislative proceeding” if they intentionally engage in “disorderly or disruptive conduct” in a legislative building, and the conduct “disrupts” or “impedes” a meeting of members of the legislature. The bill does not define “disrupt” or “impede,” so it is not clear whether even fleeting disruptions are included. An individual’s first offense is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail; a subsequent offense is a Class D felony, punishable by up to 5 years. As such, someone who twice engages in a noisy protest that interrupts a committee hearing, even momentarily, could face 5 years in prison. Under the bill, a person commits second degree “interference with a legislative proceeding” if they intend to “disrupt” or “impede” the legislature, and either (a) enter or “conspire” to enter or facilitate another person’s entering part of the statehouse or another legislative building, or (b) “obstruct or impede” or “conspire to obstruct or impede,” or “facilitate[] another person obstructing or impeding” the movement of a legislator or legislative staff inside a legislative building. An individual’s first offense is a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to 3 months in jail; a subsequent offense is a Class A misdemeanor. As written, the bill could result in jail sentences for advocates who organize large or noisy protests at the statehouse, as well as participants of such protests, even if they do not actually interfere with legislative proceedings. The bill also requires law enforcement to arrest individuals who commit either offense.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 21 Feb 2024; Approved by House 11 March 2024

return to map
Kentucky

HB 396: Heightened penalties for "riot" offenses, blocking traffic, and disrupting public meetings

Would expand liability for “riot” from just those who “knowingly participate” in the “riot”, to people who “knowingly provide supplies” to a participant in a “riot” that “could be used as weapons or dangerous instruments.” Many everyday items at protests could be used as weapons, from water bottles to umbrellas; a supporter who hands out water bottles at a protest could seemingly be held liable under these provisions, if the protest is declared a “riot.” The bill also redefines “riot,” as a group of five or more people who engage in “violent and unlawful overt action” that poses a “substantial imminent risk” of property damage or injury. The bill mandates 30-45 day prison sentences without opportunity for probation or parole for participation in a “riot” or “providing supplies” to “riot” participants. The bill also increases penalties for protests that block streets or sidewalks, making it a Class A, not B, misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and $500 to obstruct any “public passage.” If the obstruction prevents access to a building’s emergency exit or the passage of an emergency vehicle, it would be a Class D felony under the bill. A participant in a large protest could seemingly face felony charges if, unbeknownst to them, some portion of the protest blocks a building’s emergency exit. The bill would make it a Class A, not B, misdemeanor to do “any act tending to obstruct or interfere with” a lawful meeting or make “any utterance, gesture, or display designed to outrage the sensibilities of the group” with intent to disrupt the meeting. This could seemingly apply to protesters who speak out of turn or say something controversial at a public hearing. Finally, the bill would allow civil lawsuits against local governments for failing to prevent damage to property, if authorities had reason to believe a "riot" or "tumultuous assemblage" was going to take place and were "grossly negligent" in their response. If enacted, these provisions could encourage municipal and other local governments to adopt overly aggressive law enforcement responses to protests in order to avoid costly lawsuits. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 28 Jan 2022.

Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference, State Liability

return to map
Kentucky

SB 44: Heightened penalties for "riot" offenses and new legal defense for people who use lethal force during a "riot"

Would enhance penalties for offenses committed during a "riot." Kentucky law broadly defines "riot" as a group of five or more people who disturb the public by "tumultuous and violent conduct" that creates "grave danger" of property damage or injury, or "substantially obstructs law enforcement or other government function." Under the bill, someone charged with any offense during a "riot" may not be released for at least 48 hours after their arrest. If the person is convicted of the offense, the bill requires increased fines, restitution, and mandatory jail time if the person was near the "riot" and knew that it was occurring when they committed the offense. Resisting arrest, usually a misdemeanor offense, is a Class D felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison if it occurs during a "riot." The bill likewise intensifies penalties for blocking traffic, from a Class B misdemeanor to a Class D felony if it occurs during a "riot." The bill would in certain cases bar 24-hour protests on government property, such as the grounds of a statehouse, by making it a Class A misdemeanor to "camp" on such property during a "riot" or within a day after a "riot." "Camping" is defined as conduct between 10pm and 7am that includes placing or sitting on a chair or other furniture. The second or subsequent offense of unlawful "camping" is a Class D felony. The bill amends Kentucky's "stand your ground" law, establishing a legal justification for using deadly or other violent force in self-defense or defense of others during a "riot." The bill would create a new presumption that if someone uses defensive force intended to cause death or significant bodily harm "during the course of a riot," that they had a "reasonable fear" of death or harm to themselves or someone else. The bill does not require that the object of the violence force be actually engaged in the "riot." The bill would also allow civil lawsuits against local governments for failure to prevent damage to property, if authorities had reason to believe a "riot" or "tumultuous assemblage" was going to take place and were "grossly negligent" in their response. If enacted, these provisions could encourage municipal and other local governments to adopt overly aggressive law enforcement responses to protests in order to avoid costly lawsuits. Finally, the bill creates new penalties--up to 3 months in jail--for someone who "accosts, insults, taunts, or challenges" a law enforcement officer using "abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language" or "gestures," if it would have a "direct tendency to provoke a violent response" from the officer and prevent them from "adequately performing his or her duties."

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 5 Jan 2022.

Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference, Camping, State Liability, Stand Your Ground

return to map
Kentucky

HB 546: Heightened penalties for protesters who block traffic, disrupt meetings, or participate in a "riot"

Would increase the penalty for obstructing a highway or public passage to a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail. If the obstruction prevents an emergency vehicle from accessing a street or access to an emergency exit it is a class D felony, punishable by one to five years in prison. The bill increases the penalty for disrupting a meeting, including by making "any utterance, gesture, or display designed to outrage the sensibilities of the group," to a Class A misdemeanor. The bill also creates a mandatory minimum sentence of thirty days in jail for someone who knowingly participates in a "riot." A "riot" in Kentucky is defined as a group of five or more persons which by tumultuous and violent conduct create a grave danger of damage or injury to property or persons or obstructs law enforcement. As such, a person could face a mandatory sentence even if they did not engage in violence themselves, no one was injured, and no substantial property damage occurred. Under the bill, there is a presumption that a person shall not be released from custody for at least 12 hours if they have been charged with obstructing a highway or public passage, disrupting a meeting, or participating in a "riot." This provides police and prosecutors wide discretion to detain protesters even if they have not been charged with any violence or convicted of any crime. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 23 Feb 2021; Expired with end of 2021 session

Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference

return to map
Kentucky

SB 211: Mandatory minimum penalties for numerous offenses associated with protests, and a ban on "camping" on state property

Would create mandatory penalties for participation in a "riot" and "incitement to riot," including mandatory minimum prison sentences without parole or probation, a fine of $500-$5,000, and disqualification from public assistance benefits for 6 months to a year. Kentucky law broadly defines "riot" as a group of five or more people who disturb the public by "tumultuous and violent conduct" that creates "grave danger" of property damage or injury or "substantially obstructs law enforcement or other government function." The bill intensifies penalties for blocking traffic if it takes place during a "riot," providing that intentionally making a road or highway impassable or "prevent[ing] law enforcement officers from accessing an assembly, protest, demonstration, or other gathering" is a Class D felony if it occurs during a "riot;" the bill requires as punishment a minimum mandatory sentence of 4 years in prison, a $5,000 fine, and disqualification from public benefits for one year. The bill newly criminalizes using "offensive or derisive words" to "taunt[]" or "insult[]" a law enforcement officer. The bill also provides heightened penalties and mandatory minimum sentences for the offenses of resisting arrest, obstructing emergency responders, and failure to disperse, if they are committed during a "riot." The bill bars 24-hour protests on certain state property, by making it a Class A misdemeanor to "camp" on state property that is not specifically designated for camping. "Camping" is defined as conduct between 10pm and 7am that includes laying down a blanket or using a piece of furniture. If "camping" occurs during a "riot," the bill requires a mandatory minimum sentence of 6 months in jail without parole or probation, a $500 fine, and disqualification from public benefits for 6 months. The second or subsequent offense is a Class D felony, subject to a minimum sentence of 4 years in prison, a $5,000 fine, and disqualification from public benefits for one year. The bill prohibits granting bail for at least 48 hours to anyone arrested of offenses including camping on state property, criminal mischief, obstructing an emergency responder, riot, and incitement to riot. The bill establishes a new legal justification for using lethal force during protests, creating a presumption that a person who uses force in self-defense had a "reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm" if they acted during a "riot." Finally, the bill would allow civil lawsuits against the government for failure to prevent damage to property, if authorities had "notice or good reason to believe" that a "riot" or "tumultuous assemblage" was going to take place and were "grossly negligent" in their response. If enacted, these provisions could encourage municipal and other local governments to adopt overly aggressive law enforcement responses to protests in order to avoid costly lawsuits. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Feb 2021; Approved by Senate 11 March 2021; Expired with end of 2021 session

Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference, Camping, State Liability, Stand Your Ground, Limit on Public Benefits

return to map
Kentucky

HB 164: New penalties for protests that disrupt lawful meetings, block traffic, occur overnight on state property, and for "riot" offenses

Would raise penalties for protests that disrupt or offend meetings of public officials. The penalty for "disrupting a meeting" is increased to a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail, if a person did "any act" "tending to obstruct" a lawful meeting, or made "any utterance, gesture, or display designed to outrage the sensibilities of the group." Protests that block streets would face higher penalties as well: Obstructing any "public passage" is raised to a Class A misdemeanor; it is raised to a Class D felony, punishable by up to five years in prison, if it prevents an "emergency vehicle," defined as any government or public service vehicle responding to an emergency, from accessing a street. The bill also bars 24-hour protests on certain state property, by making it a Class D felony to "camp" on state property that is not specifically designated for camping. "Camping" is defined as conduct between 10pm and 7am that includes laying down a blanket or using a piece of furniture. The bill would impose mandatory minimum sentences of 30-45 days for individuals convicted of riot offenses. Kentucky law defines "riot" as a group of five or more that creates a danger of property damage or personal injury, or that substantially obstructs law enforcement or another government function, through violent and tumultuous conduct. The bill would also require that courts order full restitution "for any pecuniary loss" in riot convictions. The provision does not require that an individual convicted be ordered to pay restitution only for "pecuniary loss" that they were directly responsible for.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 5 Jan 2021; Expired with end of 2021 session

Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference, Camping

return to map
Kentucky

HB 238: New penalties for protests near pipelines and other infrastructure

Would create new potential criminal and civil penalties for protests around oil or gas pipelines and other infrastructure facilities. The bill expands the definition of "key infrastructure assets" to include "natural gas or petroleum pipelines and related facilities." Encompassed facilities and properties designated "key infrastructure assets" are not limited to areas that are fenced off or posted by "no entry" signs. Under the bill, a person who "intentionally" vandalizes, defaces, or impedes or inhibits key infrastructure is guilty of "trespass upon key infrastructure assets in the first degree." It is unclear whether a protest that "impeded" access to a pipeline by blocking a road, or one that "inhibited" the operation of a pipeline by blocking pipeline construction or repair equipment, would fall under this definition. The offense is categorized as a Class D felony, punishable by up to five years in prison. The bill also provides that an individual convicted of the offense may be civilly liable for "any damages to personal or real property while trespassing." Finally, the bill provides that a person or "entity" that "compensates or remunerates a person for trespassing" may be held liable for damages, as well.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 5 Feb 2019; Approved by House 26 February 2019

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

return to map
Kentucky

HB 53: Eliminating driver liability for hitting protesters

Would eliminate all liability for drivers who injure or kill a protester who is blocking traffic. The bill creates a new Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail, for interfering with traffic on a public road during a protest for which a permit has not been granted. Under the bill, a motorist who injures or kills an individual who is interfering with traffic during such an event cannot be held criminally or civilly liable, unless the action was intentional. The bill, prefiled as BR 305 on October 24, 2017, also prohibits the wearing of face coverings and bearing of weapons near a public protest. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 2 Jan 2018.

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Face Covering

return to map
Kentucky

BR 175: Criminalizing face coverings and weapons near protests

Would create new penalties for wearing masks or protective gear, or carrying a weapon near a public protest. According to the prefiled bill, an individual within 500 feet of a protest may not wear a mask, hood, helmet, or other facade that "covers any portion of his or her face." Likewise, individuals within 500 feet of a protest may not wear protective gear such as shields or armor, nor carry a deadly or dangerous weapon. Under the bill, commission of either act comprises "disruption of a public protest," punishable as a Class A misdemeanor with up to twelve months in jail and a $500 fine. BR 175 was ultimately withdrawn, but its provisions on "disruption of a public protest" were included in HB 53 at the beginning of the 2018 legislative session. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 24 Aug 2017.

Issue(s): Face Covering

return to map
Kentucky

HB 488: Harsh penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

Would make it a class D felony to wear a mask, hood, or other device to conceal one's identity at a public protest, demonstration, or march in order to escape recognition when committing a crime. As such, a protester wearing a mask who committed a relatively minor crime, such as traffic interference, could face this offense, which is punishable by a minimum of one year and up to to five years in jail. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 2 Feb 2017.

Issue(s): Face Covering

return to map
Louisiana

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.

(See full text of bill here)

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

return to map
Louisiana

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.     

(See full text of bill here)

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

return to map
Louisiana

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.

(See full text of bill here)

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

return to map
Louisiana

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.

(See full text of bill here)

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

return to map
Louisiana

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."

(See full text of bill here)

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

return to map
Louisiana

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.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 29 Feb 2024.

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Traffic Interference

return to map
Louisiana

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

return to map
Louisiana

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

return to map
Louisiana

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

return to map
Maryland

HB 645: New penalties for protests on streets and sidewalks

Would create new criminal penalties for protesters who interfere with vehicular or pedestrian traffic. The bill makes it an offense to knowingly and unlawfully "obstruct, hinder, impede, or block" use of a "highway." The offense would be a misdemeanor punishable by 3 years in prison and a $2,500 fine. Maryland Code on Transportation 8-101 defines "highway" to include any "structures forming an integral part of a street, road, or highway, including bicycle and walking paths." If the bill were enacted, peaceful protesters who temporarily diverted pedestrians on a sidewalk could face up to three years in prison. The bill would also newly criminalize "disturb[ing] the peace of another" by making an "unreasonably loud noise"--for instance through a march or demonstration--on a street or other right-of-way. The offense would be a misdemeanor, punishable by two months in jail and a $500 fine. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 22 Jan 2021.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Maryland

HB 198: New penalties for protests that "disturb the peace"

Would dramatically expand the definition of "disturbing the peace" such that it could be applied to protests in a number of contexts. Under the bill, the offense is revised to broadly prohibit intentionally causing or recklessly creating a risk of "public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm," by conduct including: engaging in "tumultuous or threatening behavior;" "making unreasonable noise;" "disturbing" any lawful meeting or gathering; or obstructing vehicular or pedestrian traffic. As revised, the offense could apply to protesters who are deemed "threatening" or "unreasonably" noisy; it could also apply to a protest that "disturbs" a government hearing or "obstructs" pedestrians on a public sidewalk. The offense is a misdemeanor punishable by up to two months in jail and a $500 fine. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 1 Nov 2020; Withdrawn by sponsor 2 March 2021

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Massachusetts

HD 1358: NEW PENALTIES FOR PROTESTS THAT BLOCK ROADS

Would penalize "any person who intentionally blocks or prevents access to a public roadway or highway while protesting with the express purpose of preventing passage of others." Under the bill, anyone who intentionally blocked a public road in the course of a protest could be sentenced to up to ten years in prison. This bill is nearly identical to HB 1586, introduced in 2021, and HB 1428, introduced in 2019. (See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 18 Jan 2023.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Massachusetts

HD 1348: NEW CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR DEATHS DURING PROTESTS

Would create the new criminal offense of "manslaughter caused by reckless disregard of life while protesting or blocking highway or roadway access." The offense would be added to the definition of "manslaughter" under Massachusetts law. Accordingly, if organizers led a protest onto a road and a protester was hit by a car, e.g., the organizers could potentially be held liable for manslaughter under the bill. The offense would be punishable by up to twenty years in prison. The bill is nearly identical to HD 3284, introduced in 2019. (See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 18 Jan 2023.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Massachusetts

HB 1586: New penalties for protests that block roads

Would penalize "any person who intentionally blocks or prevents access to a public roadway or highway while protesting with the express purpose of preventing passage of others." Under the bill, anyone who intentionally blocked a public road in the course of a protest could be sentenced to up to ten years in prison. This bill is nearly identical to HB 1428 introduced in 2019. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 28 Jan 2021.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Massachusetts

HB 1428: New penalties for protests that block roads

Would penalize "any person who intentionally blocks or prevents access to a public roadway or highway while protesting with the express purpose of preventing passage of others." Under the bill, anyone who intentionally blocked a public road in the course of a protest could be sentenced to up to ten years in prison. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 22 Jan 2019.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Massachusetts

HB 3284: New criminal liability for deaths during protests

Would create the new criminal offense of "manslaughter caused by reckless disregard of life while protesting or blocking highway or roadway access." The offense would be added to the definition of "manslaughter" under Massachusetts law. Accordingly, if organizers led a protest onto a road and a protester was hit by a car, e.g., the organizers could potentially be held liable for manslaughter under the bill. The offense would be punishable by up to twenty years in prison. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 22 Jan 2019.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Massachusetts

S 1036: Heightened penalties for blocking traffic

Would penalize anyone who obstructs or attempts to obstruct "the normal movement of traffic, commerce, or any emergency medical services on a limited access or express state highway" in a manner that is dangerous to the general public. Under the bill, whoever commits this act could be punished up to 10 years in jail. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 22 Jan 2019.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Massachusetts

HB 1588: Prohibition on masked demonstrations

Would compel the immediate dispersal of a demonstration or other assembly of people wearing masks or other disguises. The bill provides that if a group of five or more individuals who are "masked or in any manner disguised by unusual or unnatural attire or facial alteration" assemble together, authorities should command them to disperse. If the assembly does not immediately disperse, they are deemed a riot or unlawful assembly and the authorities can compel anyone present to help "suppress" the assembly and arrest those participating. The bill makes no exception for religious or festive attire. Nor does it require any malicious intent by those assembling or conduct beyond wearing masks and assembling in a group. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 17 Jan 2019.

Issue(s): Face Covering, Riot

return to map
Massachusetts

HB 916: New penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would provide for harsh new penalties for individuals who impede traffic in the course of a protest or demonstration. The bill creates a broad offense of intentionally blocking, obstructing, impeding or otherwise interfering with the "normal and reasonable movement of vehicular or pedestrian traffic" on a public street or highway, punishable by up to $5,000 and a year in jail. Under the bill, police may arrest without a warrant any person they have probable cause to believe has unlawfully impeded traffic. The bill further makes any person convicted of unlawfully impeding traffic liable for the costs incurred by public and/or private emergency services in responding to the incident. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 30 Jun 2017.

Issue(s): Security Costs, Traffic Interference

return to map
Michigan

HB 5708: Mandatory penalties for "riot" and "incitement to riot"

Would impose steep, mandatory penalties for “riot” and “incitement to riot” offenses. Under the bill, an individual convicted of “riot” would face at least five years and up to life in prison, while one convicted of “incitement to riot” would face at least ten years and up to life in prison. Currant Michigan law provides for a sentence of “not more than” ten years for either offense, giving judges discretion to order more lenient sentences or avoid imprisonment altogether. Michigan law defines “riot” as a group of at least five people who “wrongfully engage in violent conduct” and “cause or create a serious risk of causing public terror or alarm.” “Inciting to riot” is defined as “intending to cause or to aid or abet” a “riot” and doing something that urges other people to engage in “unlawful force or violence, or the unlawful burning or destroying of property, or the unlawful interference” with law enforcement. Neither offense requires that actual unlawful violence, injury, or property damage occur.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 7 May 2024.

Issue(s): Riot

return to map
Michigan

HB 6269: Revoking Public Benefits of those Charged during "Civil Unrest"

Would revoke public assistance benefits for one year for someone who is "charged with looting, vandalism, or a violent crime in relation to or stemming from civil unrest." "Civil unrest" is defined to include simply unlawfully blocking a sidewalk or roadway or an unlawful assembly. "Violent crime" is defined broadly to include "intimidation, threat, or coercion." As such, a nonviolent protester who was charged, but not convicted, of making a threat or being intimidating at a protest could lose their public assistance, including medical and food assistance from the state. The bill further requires that if the person has their child with them when they are charged with a covered crime that the individual will be reported to child protective services. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 29 Sep 2020.

Issue(s): Riot, Limit on Public Benefits

return to map
Michigan

HB 4436: New limits on campus protests

Would impose new limits on protests at public colleges and universities. The bill would require all public institutions of higher education to adopt a policy prohibiting protests and demonstrations that "substantially and materially infringe upon the rights of others to engage in or listen to expressive activity," and make protesters involved in such assemblies "subject to sanction." As a result, protests in public areas of campus that, for instance, made it difficult to hear a speech, would be banned and its participants liable to penalties. The policy would apply not only to students and faculty but any other person "lawfully present on campus." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Apr 2019.

Issue(s): Campus Protests

return to map
Michigan

SB 350: Mandatory sanctions for campus protesters

Would create mandatory disciplinary sanctions that could be applied to peaceful protesters on college and university campuses. The bill requires community and public colleges to prohibit and subject to sanction any "protests or demonstrations that infringe upon the rights of others to engage in or listen to expressive activity" on campus. The bill requires that college administrators suspend for at least one year or expel any student who is twice "found responsible for infringing on the expressive rights of others," for instance through a protest or demonstration. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 2 May 2017.

Issue(s): Campus Protests

return to map
Minnesota

SF 5500: New civil immunity for drivers who hit protesters

Would shield from civil lawsuits drivers who hit street protesters in certain situations. The bill provides that anyone who unlawfully obstructs a roadway cannot sue a driver for any injury, loss, death or damage they suffered if the driver was seeking to “retreat or escape” from the roadway obstruction and believed they were in immediate danger of injury.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 1 May 2024.

Issue(s): Driver Immunity

return to map
Minnesota

HF 1445 / SF 1493: New penalties for pipeline protesters and organizers

Would create new civil and criminal liability for any person or entity that "recruits, trains, aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with" a person who trespasses on critical infrastructure property. Under the bill, such a person or entity would be civilly liable for any damages committed by the trespasser. They would also be guilty of a gross misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $3,000, if they fail to make a reasonable effort to prevent the violation.The bill would also make the person who trespasses on critical infrastructure property strictly liable for civil damages.  

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Feb 2023.

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

return to map
Minnesota

SF 935: BARRING PUBLIC BENEFITS FOR PROTEST-RELATED OFFENSES

Would broadly disqualify a person convicted of an offense during a protest from receiving public assistance. Any "offense related to the person's illegal conduct at a protest, demonstration, rally, civil unrest, or march" would disqualify the person from a range of benefits, including food assistance, education loans and grants, and unemployment assistance. Under the bill, a person convicted of even a misdemeanor that is deemed somehow "related" to their participation in a peaceful protest could face permanent disqualification from such benefits. Nearly identical text was introduced as HF 466/SF 2381 in 2021.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 30 Jan 2023.

Issue(s): Limit on Public Benefits

return to map
Minnesota

HF 1967 / SF 1285: New Penalties for Protesters Who Block Traffic

Would heighten penalties for protesters who intentionally disrupt traffic on a freeway or a roadway on airport property. Like HF 390, introduced in the 2019-2020 session, HF 1967 provides that intentional traffic disruption on freeways or airport roadways would be a gross misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $3,000 fine. HF 303, also introduced in 2021, shares the same language as HF 1967. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 8 Mar 2021.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Minnesota

HB 1558: New penalties for pipeline protesters and organizers

Would create joint and several civil liability for any person or entity that knowingly aids, advises, counsels, or conspires with a person who trespasses on critical infrastructure property. The bill would also create strict civil liability for any damages caused by a person who trespasses on critical infrastructure property. The bill would also create a felony offense, punishable by up to 3 years and a fine of $5,000, for a person who trespasses on critical infrastructure with the intent to impede or inhibit its operation.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 25 Feb 2021.

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

return to map
Minnesota

SF 355: New penalties for protests near oil and gas pipelines

Would create new civil and criminal liability for protesters on pipeline property as well as civil liability for any organization or entity that supports them. Like SF 3230/ HF 2966, introduced during the 2019-2020 session, the bill would make someone who trespasses on property containing a pipeline or other "critical public service facility" liable for any damages to property that they commit while trespassing. Any person or entity that "knowingly recruits, trains, aids, advises, hires, counsels, [or] conspires with" someone who trespasses or causes damage to property could be held "jointly and severably liable." If the person trespasses with intent "to significantly impede or inhibit operation" of a covered facility, utility, or pipeline they are guilty of a felony and may be subject to three years in prison and/or a $5,000 fine. The phrase "significantly impede or inhibit" could be construed to encompass peaceful protests that block access to infrastructure, which under Minnesota law is broadly defined to include bus stations and parts of bridges. The broad language used in the joint and severable liability provisions could be construed to include aiding a protester by providing them with water or medical assistance.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 28 Jan 2021.

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

return to map
Minnesota

HF 466 / SF 2381: Barring public benefits for protest-related offenses

Would broadly disqualify a person convicted of an offense during a protest from receiving public assistance. Any "offense related to the person's illegal conduct at a protest, demonstration, rally, civil unrest, or march" would disqualify the person from a range of benefits, including food assistance, education loans and grants, and unemployment assistance. Under the bill, a person convicted of even a misdemeanor that is deemed somehow "related" to their participation in a peaceful protest could face permanent disqualification from such benefits. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 28 Jan 2021.

Issue(s): Limit on Public Benefits

return to map
Minnesota

HF 254 / SF 386: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines

Would create new potential penalties for protests near pipelines, utilities, and "critical public service facilities." Like HF 2441, which was introduced in the 2019-2020 session, HF 254 criminalizes trespass onto such properties, including those under construction, as a gross misdemeanor punishable by one year in jail and a $3,000 fine. Trespass "with the intent to disrupt the operation or provision of services" by the pipeline or utility, is a felony under the bill, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The bill also newly provides that a court may order anyone convicted of the above offenses to pay for "the costs and expenses resulting from the crime."

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 21 Jan 2021.

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Security Costs, Trespass

return to map
Minnesota

HF 129 / SF 1378: NEW PENALTIES FOR PROTESTS NEAR GAS AND OIL PIPELINES

Would create new civil and criminal liability for protesters on infrastructure property as well as for any organization or entity that supports them. Like HF 3668, introduced in the 2019-2020 session, HF 129 would make someone who is convicted of or merely arrested for trespassing on property containing a critical public service facility, utility, or pipeline, civilly liable for any property damage arising out of the trespass. Under the bill, a person "or entity" that "recruits, trains, aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with" someone who is convicted of or arrested for trespassing is also civilly liable for damages. The bill creates criminal liability for anyone who "intentionally recruits, trains, aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with" someone to trespass, as well: If the person or entity fails to make a "reasonable effort" to prevent the trespass, and the offense is committed, they are guilty of a gross misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $3,000 fine. The broad language used in the vicarious liability provisions could be construed to include aiding a protester by providing them with water or medical assistance. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 14 Jan 2021.

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

return to map
Minnesota

HF 3668: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines

Would create new civil and criminal liability for protesters on infrastructure property as well as for any organization or entity that supports them. The bill would make someone who is convicted of or merely arrested for trespassing on property containing a critical public service facility, utility, or pipeline, civilly liable for any property damage arising out of the trespass. Under the bill, a person "or entity" that "recruits, trains, aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with" someone who is convicted of or arrested for trespassing is also civilly liable for damages. The bill creates criminal liability for anyone who "intentionally recruits, trains, aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with" someone to trespass, as well: If the person or entity fails to make a "reasonable effort" to prevent the trespass, and the offense is committed, they are guilty of a gross misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $3,000 fine. The broad language used in the vicarious liability provisions could be construed to include aiding a protester by providing them with water or medical assistance. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 24 Feb 2020.

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

return to map
Minnesota

HF 2966: New Penalties for Protests Near Oil and Gas Pipelines

Would create new civil and criminal liability for protesters on infrastructure property as well as civil liability for any organization or entity that supports them. The bill would make someone who trespasses on property containing a critical public service facility, utility, or pipeline liable for any damages to property that they commit while trespassing. Any person or entity that "knowingly recruits, trains, aids, advises, hires, counsels, [or] conspires with" someone who trespasses or causes damage to property could be held "jointly and severably liable." If the person trespasses with intent "to significantly impede or inhibit operation" of a covered facility, utility, or pipeline they are guilty of a felony and may be subject to three years in prison and/or a $5,000 fine. The phrase "significantly impede or inhibit" could be construed to encompass peaceful protests that block access to infrastructure, which under Minnesota law is broadly defined to include bus stations and parts of bridges. The broad language used in the joint and severable liability provision could be construed to include aiding a protester by providing them with water or medical assistance.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 31 Jan 2020.

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

return to map
Minnesota

HF 2441/SF 2011: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines

Would create new potential penalties for protests near pipelines, utilities, and "critical public service facilities." The bill criminalizes trespass onto such properties, including those under construction, as a gross misdemeanor punishable by one year in jail and a $3,000 fine. Trespass "with the intent to disrupt the operation or provision of services" by the pipeline or utility, is a felony under the bill, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The bill also newly provides that a court may order anyone convicted of the above offenses to pay for "the costs and expenses resulting from the crime."

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 4 Mar 2019.

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Security Costs, Trespass

return to map
Minnesota

HF 1383: Mandatory sanctions for campus protesters

Would create mandatory disciplinary sanctions that could be applied to peaceful protesters on college and university campuses. The bill provides that the Board of Trustees of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities must adopt a policy of sanctioning anyone under an institution's jurisdiction who "materially and substantially interferes with the free expression of others." According to the bill, the policy must include that any student who has twice been found guilty of "infringing the expressive rights of others"--for instance, through a protest--will be suspended for at least one year or expelled. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 18 Feb 2019.

Issue(s): Campus Protests

return to map
Minnesota

HF 390: New penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would heighten potential penalties for protesters who intentionally disrupt traffic on a freeway or a roadway on airport property. The version of HF 390 introduced in the 2019-2020 session uses a definition of the offense that is similar to that of HF 390 from the 2017-2018 session, and would result in the same sanctions: Intentional traffic disruption on freeways or airport roadways would be a gross misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a $3,000 fine. The provisions would be added to Minnesota statutes on public nuisance, however, rather than those on roads and right-of-way. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 28 Jan 2019.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Minnesota

SF 3463: New penalties for pipeline protesters and protest supporters

Would have created new civil liability for protesters on infrastructure property, as well as vicarious liability for any individual or organization who supported them. The bill would make someone who trespasses on property containing a "critical public service facility, utility, or pipeline" liable for any damages to persons or property, and any person or entity that "recruits, trains, aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with them" vicariously liable for such damages. Under Minnesota law, a person who trespasses on infrastructure property is guilty of a gross misdemeanor; the bill would make anyone who "recruits, trains, aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with" a trespasser likewise guilty of a gross misdemeanor, which is punishable by one year in jail and a $3,000 fine. If the person trespasses "with the intent to significantly disrupt the operation of or the provision of services" by the facility, the bill would make anyone who "recruits, trains, aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with" the trespasser guilty of a felony and subject to 10 years in prison and a $20,000 fine. The phrase "significantly disrupt" could be construed to encompass peaceful protests that block access to infrastructure, for instance, which under Minnesota law is broadly defined to include bus stations and bridges. The broad terms used in the vicarious liability provisions could even be construed to include aiding a protester by providing them with water or medical assistance.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 12 Mar 2018; Approved by Senate 7 May 2018; Approved by House 19 May 2018; Vetoed by Governor Dayton 30 May 2018

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

return to map
Minnesota

HF 1066/SF 918: Heightened penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would heighten penalties for any individual who "interferes with, obstructs, or renders dangerous for passage" any public highway or any right-of-way within airport property. According to the bill, such interference or obstruction is classified as a public nuisance and a gross misdemeanor, punishable by a $3,000 fine and one year of jail time. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Feb 2017.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Minnesota

HF 896/SF 803: Heightened penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would have increased penalties for protestors who intentionally obstruct highway or public roadway access to airports. Under the bill, such obstruction is classified as a gross misdemeanor rather than a misdemeanor. The bill, an omnibus public safety measure, incorporates language from two previously proposed bills aimed at heightening penalties on protesters. It would have allowed prosecutors to seek a $3,000 fine and one year of jail time for protesters intentionally blocking or interfering with traffic on a highway or public roadway within the boundaries of airport property. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Feb 2017; Vetoed by Governor Dayton 15 May 2017

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Minnesota

HF 322/SF 679: Charging protesters for the cost of responding to a protest

Would allow the state to sue protesters and charge them for the costs of policing a public assembly. The bill gives state agencies, cities, and counties the authority to bring civil lawsuits against people convicted of unlawful assembly or public nuisance. The lawsuits could seek the full cost of responding to the unlawful assembly, including officer time, law enforcement helicopters, and administrative expenses. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 2 Feb 2017.

Issue(s): Security Costs

return to map
Minnesota

HF 390: Heightened penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would have increased penalties for protesters who intentionally obstruct highways or public roadway access to airports, or interfered with a transit operator. Under the bill, the offense of highway or airport access obstruction would have been a gross misdemeanor rather than a misdemeanor, punishable by a $3,000 fine and one year in jail. Provisions added to the bill during the 2018 session--following a high-profile incident in which protesters sat on light-rail tracks--would have broadened the offense of "unlawful interference with a transit operator" to include any act that "restricts passenger access to the transit vehicle." Penalties for that offense would likewise be increased to a $3,000 fine and one year in jail. In his message vetoing the bill, Governor Dayton cited the bill's vague provisions as well as the fact that the offenses were already prohibited and subject to sufficient sanctions under Minnesota law. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 23 Jan 2017; Approved by House 8 May 2018; Approved by Senate 14 May 2018; Vetoed by Governor Dayton 19 May 2018

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Mississippi

SB 2343: Requiring state permission for protests near statehouse and other state government buildings

The law requires that organizers obtain written permission from state law enforcement before holding a protest near the Mississippi statehouse or other state government buildings. As a result, state officials will be able to approve or disallow protests at the statehouse, including rallies and demonstrations against the actions of state officials. The permit requirement broadly applies to protests near state-owned buildings or any other property that is “occupied by any [state] official” or entity. It applies to protests on the streets and sidewalks “immediately adjacent” to such locations, as well as those that can be “reasonably be expected to block, impede, or otherwise hinder” access to such locations. The process for obtaining a permit is not stated in the law, but is to be determined by rules issued by the state law enforcement agency. Organizers of protests in Jackson, Mississippi, where the statehouse and most state government buildings are located, must already obtain a municipal permit to hold most protests; the law creates an additional state permitting requirement. The law also expands the jurisdiction of state law enforcement over infractions that may occur during nonviolent protests throughout the capitol city of Jackson: The law authorizes state police to make arrests for violations not only of state law, but of Jackson city ordinances “related to disturbance of the public peace” that may occur. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 16 Jan 2023; Approved by the Senate 8 February; Approved by the House 8 March; Signed by Governor Reeves 21 April 2023.

return to map
Mississippi

HB 1243: New Penalties for Protests Near Critical Infrastructure

Creates new potential penalties for protests near oil or gas pipelines and other infrastructure facilities, including those under construction. The law establishes two new offenses: "critical infrastructure trespass," and "impeding critical infrastructure." Critical infrastructure trespass is defined in the law as knowingly entering onto infrastructure property without authorization or not leaving once notified to depart; the offense is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of $1,000. "Impeding" critical infrastructure is defined to include "preventing legal access to" a critical infrastructure property or construction site. Under the law, such impediment is punishable by 7 years in prison and a $10,000 fine if the impediment results in $1,000 worth of damage or economic loss. If the damage or loss is less than $1,000, the offense is punishable by six months' imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. The law also provides that an organization "that aids, abets, solicits, compensates, hires, conspires with, commands or procures" someone to impede critical infrastructure is subject to a $100,000 fine and liable for a civil action by the infrastructure facility. "Critical infrastructure facility" is broadly defined and among many other things includes oil and gas pipelines, refineries, water treatment plants, cell phone towers, and railroad tracks-as well as "[a]ny site where the construction or improvement of any [referenced] facility... is ongoing."

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 19 Feb 2020; Approved by House 4 March 2020; Approved by Senate 15 June 2020; Signed by Governor 25 June 2020.

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

return to map
Mississippi

HB 1365: Heightened penalties for protesters on streets and sidewalks


Would make it a felony to intentionally obstruct or interfere with the ordinary use of any public street, alley, highway, or sidewalk. Currently this crime is a misdemeanor and this bill would increase the penalty to a felony punishable by minimum of one year in jail and up to two years in jail or a fine of at least $1,500.  

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 19 Feb 2024.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Mississippi

HB 34: NEW PENALTIES FOR PROTESTORS WHO INTERFERE WITH TRAFFIC AND A LEGAL SHIELD FOR DRIVERS AND OTHERS WHO INJURE OR KILL PROTESTERS

Would create a vaguely defined new felony offense, "violent or disorderly assembly" that could cover peaceful protesters. The offense is defined as conduct by seven or more assembled people that creates an "immediate danger of damage to property" or personal injury, or that "substantially obstructs law enforcement or other governmental functions or services." The offense would be punishable by up to 3 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. The vagueness of the definition would allow authorities broad discretion to determine what constitutes, for instance, "creat[ing] an immediate danger" of property damage or injury. The bill includes new penalties for protests that interfere with traffic on roads and sidewalks, including a felony offense for "interfering with the regular flow of vehicular traffic" during a "violent or disorderly assembly." Under the bill, a driver who injures or kills someone who "obstructs or interferes with" traffic during an unpermitted protest or a "violent or disorderly assembly" is not criminally or civilly liable, as long as the driver did not do so "intentionally." The bill strips unemployment assistance from any person who is convicted of or pleads guilty or nolo contendere to a number of protest-related offenses, including "violent or disorderly assembly," and requires that government employees found guilty of violating any of the bill's provisions be fired from their positions. The bill precludes civil lawsuits against the state by anyone convicted of "unlawfully participating in a riot, unlawful assembly, public demonstration, mob violence, or civil disobedience," if the claim arises out of that conduct. Further, the bill creates a new civil right of action against local governments by any "victim" of "violent or unlawful assembly" or other protest-related offenses, if the local government "failed or was grossly negligent" in policing a riot or "violent or disorderly assembly" - provisions that, if enacted, could encourage municipal and other local governments to adopt overly aggressive law enforcement responses to protests in order to avoid lawsuits. The bill would newly add "violent or disorderly assembly" to the underlying crimes that can be prosecuted for "racketeering activity" under Mississippi's RICO statute, such that an organization or individual found to have "conspired" with individuals to engage in a protest that is deemed a "violent or disorderly assembly" could be prosecuted under RICO and subject to felony penalties. Finally, the bill would amend Mississippi's law on "justifiable homicide," creating a new legal justification for anyone who uses deadly force to "necessarily" defend their business "where there is looting, rioting" or other offenses created under the bill, including the defacing of public property. The text was first introduced as HB 83 in the 2021 session. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 3 Jan 2023.

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Driver Immunity, Riot, Traffic Interference, State Liability, Limit on Public Benefits

return to map
Mississippi

HB 1106: Heightened penalties for protesters on streets and sidewalks

Would significantly increase the penalties for protesters who obstruct the "convenient and normal" use of streets and sidewalks by "impeding" or "hindering" traffic or passage thereon. Under current Mississippi law, individuals guilty of such obstruction may be charged with a $500 fine and 6 months in jail; the bill would make such obstruction punishable by a $1,500 fine and a year in jail. The bill would also introduce a mandatory 30-day jail sentence for second and subsequent offences, and a fine of up to $2,500. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 17 Jan 2022; Died in committee

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Mississippi

HB 24 / HB 613: NEW PENALTIES FOR PROTESTORS WHO INTERFERE WITH TRAFFIC AND A LEGAL SHIELD FOR DRIVERS AND OTHERS WHO INJURE OR KILL PROTESTERS

Would create a vaguely defined new felony offense, "violent or disorderly assembly" that could cover peaceful protesters. The offense is defined as conduct by seven or more assembled people that creates an "immediate danger of damage to property" or personal injury, or that "substantially obstructs law enforcement or other governmental functions or services." The offense would be punishable by up to 3 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. The vagueness of the definition would allow authorities broad discretion to determine what constitutes, for instance, "creat[ing] an immediate danger" of property damage or injury. The bill includes new penalties for protests that interfere with traffic on roads and sidewalks, including a felony offense for "interfering with the regular flow of vehicular traffic" during a "violent or disorderly assembly." Under the bill, a driver who injures or kills someone who "obstructs or interferes with" traffic during an unpermitted protest or a "violent or disorderly assembly" is not criminally or civilly liable, as long as the driver did not do so "intentionally." The bill strips unemployment assistance from any person who is convicted of or pleads guilty or nolo contendere to a number of protest-related offenses, including "violent or disorderly assembly," and requires that government employees found guilty of violating any of the bill's provisions be fired from their positions. The bill precludes civil lawsuits against the state by anyone convicted of "unlawfully participating in a riot, unlawful assembly, public demonstration, mob violence, or civil disobedience," if the claim arises out of that conduct. Further, the bill creates a new civil right of action against local governments by any "victim" of "violent or unlawful assembly" or other protest-related offenses, if the local government "failed or was grossly negligent" in policing a riot or "violent or disorderly assembly" - provisions that, if enacted, could encourage municipal and other local governments to adopt overly aggressive law enforcement responses to protests in order to avoid lawsuits. The bill would newly add "violent or disorderly assembly" to the underlying crimes that can be prosecuted for "racketeering activity" under Mississippi's RICO statute, such that an organization or individual found to have "conspired" with individuals to engage in a protest that is deemed a "violent or disorderly assembly" could be prosecuted under RICO, and subject to felony penalties. Finally, the bill would amend Mississippi's law on "justifiable homicide," creating a new legal justification for anyone who uses deadly force to "necessarily" defend their business "where there is looting, rioting" or other offenses created under the bill, including the defacing of public property. Identical language was introduced by another House member as HB 613. The text was first introduced as HB 83 in the 2021 session. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 4 Jan 2022; Died in committee

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Driver Immunity, Riot, Traffic Interference, State Liability, Limit on Public Benefits

return to map
Mississippi

HB 763: New legal justification for killing people during protests

Would amend Mississippi's law on "justifiable homicide," creating a new legal justification for homicide when committed in defense of one's own business during a "riot" or "any violent protest." If enacted, the provisions could encourage deadly confrontations at protests. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 18 Jan 2021; Died in committee 2 February 2021

Issue(s): Riot, Stand Your Ground

return to map
Mississippi

SB 2374: New penalties for protest organizers and protestors who fail to disperse, interfere with traffic, or "deface" monuments, and a legal shield for drivers who hit people at protests

Would create a vaguely defined new felony offense, "violent or disorderly assembly," that could cover peaceful protesters. The offense is defined as either a) a group of 10 or more people who refuse to heed a lawful order to disperse; or b) a group of 10 or more people who create an "mmediate danger of damage to property" or personal injury, who "obstruct" law enforcement or other government services, and who "disturbs any person in the enjoyment of a legal right." Anyone who participates in, "incites," "organizes, promotes, encourages," "commits any act in furtherance of," or intentionally "aids or abets any person in inciting or participating in" a "violent or disorderly assembly" is guilty of a felony, punishable by up to 2 years in prison. The breadth and vagueness of the offence could cover, for instance, someone on social media whose post is deemed to have "encouraged" a crowd to stay and protest despite law enforcement's order to disperse. The bill includes new penalties for protests that interfere with traffic on roads and highways, including up to one year in jail for anyone who "maliciously" obstructs the "free, convenient, and normal use" of a street or highway during a protest that was not authorized by a permit, or a protest that was deemed a "violent or disorderly assembly." The bill would shield a driver who unintentionally injured or killed someone while trying to "escape a mob" during an unpermitted protest or a "violent or disorderly assembly." If enacted, those provisions would allow a driver to evade civil damages and criminal penalties for hitting and even killing a protester, as long as the injury or death was "unintended." The bill creates a new felony offense, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for anyone who "defaces" or "vandalizes" a monument during a "violent or disorderly assembly." The bill creates another offense, punishable by up to one year in jail, for anyone who "harasses" or "intimidate[s]" another person at a public accommodation during a "violent or disorderly assembly." The bill strips unemployment assistance from anyone convicted of the offenses described above; anyone convicted of the above offenses is also barred from holding state or local government employment. The bill would newly allow claims against local government entities and officials for the failure to protect individuals from injury or property damage caused by a riot or "violent or disorderly assembly," if the failure constitutes "gross negligence"; provisions that, if enacted, could encourage municipal and other local governments to adopt overly aggressive law enforcement responses to protests in order to avoid lawsuits. Finally, the bill would newly add "violent or disorderly assembly" and all related offenses described above to the crimes that can be prosecuted for "racketeering activity" under Mississippi's RICO statute. As a result, an organization or individual found to have "conspired" with individuals to engage in or encourage a protest that is deemed a "violent or disorderly assembly" could be prosecuted under RICO, and subject to felony penalties. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 15 Jan 2021.

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Driver Immunity, Riot, Traffic Interference, State Liability, Limit on Public Benefits

return to map
Mississippi

SB 2283: New mandatory penalties for protesters who block traffic

As introduced, would create new, mandatory penalties for unpermitted protests that take place on or overflow into streets and highways. Under the introduced bill, anyone who "maliciously" obstructs the "free, convenient, and normal use" of a street or highway during a protest that was not authorized by a permit, is required to be jailed for at least 25 days (and up to one year), and pay at least $500 (and up to $1,500). (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 12 Jan 2021; Approved by Senate 4 February 2021; Died in committee 2 March 2021

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Mississippi

HB 83: New penalties for protestors who interfere with traffic and a legal shield for drivers and others who injure or kill protesters

Would create a vaguely defined new felony offense, "violent or disorderly assembly" that could cover peaceful protesters. The offense is defined as conduct by seven or more assembled people that creates an "immediate danger of damage to property" or personal injury, or that "substantially obstructs law enforcement or other governmental functions or services." The offense would be punishable by up to 3 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. The vagueness of the definition would allow authorities broad discretion to determine what constitutes, for instance, "creat[ing] an immediate danger" of property damage or injury. The bill includes new penalties for protests that interfere with traffic on roads and sidewalks, including a felony offense for "interfering with the regular flow of vehicular traffic" during a "violent or disorderly assembly." Under the bill, a driver who injures or kills someone who "obstructs or interferes with" traffic during an unpermitted protest or a "violent or disorderly assembly" is not criminally or civilly liable, as long as the driver did not do so "intentionally." The bill strips unemployment assistance from any person who is convicted of or pleads guilty or nolo contendere to a number of protest-related offenses, including "violent or disorderly assembly," and requires that government employees found guilty of violating any of the bill's provisions be fired from their positions. The bill precludes civil lawsuits against the state by anyone convicted of "unlawfully participating in a riot, unlawful assembly, public demonstration, mob violence, or civil disobedience," if the claim arises out of that conduct. Further, the bill creates a new civil right of action against local governments by any "victim" of "violent or unlawful assembly" or other protest-related offenses, if the local government "failed or was grossly negligent" in policing a riot or "violent or disorderly assembly" - provisions that, if enacted, could encourage municipal and other local governments to adopt overly aggressive law enforcement responses to protests in order to avoid lawsuits. The bill would newly add "violent or disorderly assembly" to the underlying crimes that can be prosecuted for "racketeering activity" under Mississippi's RICO statute, such that an organization or individual found to have "conspired" with individuals to engage in a protest that is deemed a "violent or disorderly assembly" could be prosecuted under RICO, and subject to felony penalties. Finally, the bill would amend Mississippi's law on "justifiable homicide," creating a new legal justification for anyone who uses deadly force to "necessarily" defend their business "where there is looting, rioting" or other offenses created under the bill, including the defacing of public property. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 7 Jan 2021.

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Driver Immunity, Riot, Traffic Interference, State Liability, Limit on Public Benefits

return to map
Mississippi

SB 2474: New penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would create a new offense of "maliciously impeding traffic on a public road." According to the bill, the obstruction of a public road or highway by a person "sitting, standing, or lying" would be a misdemeanor punishable by a six-month prison sentence or a fine of up to $1,000, or both. Like SB 2730--the version of the bill introduced in the 2017-2018 session--SB 2474 both creates a new offense and expands the scope of its application to include blockages of public roads, not just highways. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 21 Jan 2019; Died in committee 5 February 2019

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Mississippi

SB 2754: New penalties for protests near critical infrastructure

Would create new potential penalties for protests near oil or gas pipelines and other infrastructure facilities, including those under construction. The bill creates two new offenses: "critical infrastructure trespass," and "impeding critical infrastructure." Critical infrastructure trespass is defined in the bill as knowingly entering onto infrastructure property without authorization or not leaving once notified to depart; the bill classifies it as a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of $1,000. "Impeding" critical infrastructure is defined to include "preventing legal access to" a critical infrastructure property or construction site. Under the bill, such impediment is punishable by 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine if the impediment results in $1,000 worth of damage or economic loss. If the damage or loss is less than $1,000, the offense is punishable by six months' imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. The bill also provides that an organization "that aids, abets, solicits, compensates, hires, conspires with, commands or procures" someone to impede critical infrastructure is subject to a $100,000 fine and liable for a civil action by the infrastructure facility. "Critical infrastructure facility" is broadly defined and among many other things includes oil and gas pipelines, refineries, water treatment plants, cell phone towers, and railroad tracks, as well as "[a]ny site where the construction or improvement of any [referenced] facility... is ongoing." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 21 Jan 2019; Approved by Senate 11 Feb 2019

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure

return to map
Mississippi

SB 2730: New penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would have created the felony crime of "maliciously impeding traffic on a public road." The obstructing of a public road or highway by a person "sitting, standing, or lying" would be punishable by a five-year prison sentence or a fine of up to $10,000, or both. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 16 Jan 2017; Failed in senate committee 31 Jan 2017

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Missouri

HB 355: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines

Creates new potential penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines and other "critical infrastructure." The law--which was substituted by a Missouri Senate committee for a House bill on sentencing guidelines--heightens the penalties for trespass occurring on critical infrastructure property. Trespass with intent "to damage, destroy, vandalize, deface, [or] tamper with" a facility or intent to "impede or inhibit the operations" of a facility is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by one year in jail and a $2,000 fine. Protesters seeking to peacefully demonstrate against construction of a new pipeline, for instance, with the intent to disrupt that construction, could be prosecuted under the law. The law also newly criminalizes "damage" to critical infrastructure, broadly defined to include vandalism, and makes it a Class C felony, punishable by 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The law also newly and broadly defines "critical infrastructure" to include oil and gas pipelines, refineries, cell phone towers, and railroad tracks whether operational or under construction. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 18 Apr 2019; Approved by Senate as amended 17 May 2019; Approved by House 17 May 2019; Signed by Governor Parson on 11 July 2019

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass

return to map
Missouri

HB 1413: Limiting public employees' ability to picket

***Note: A Judge of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County found HB 1413 unconstitutional in its entirety and granted a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the law on January 27, 2020. ***

Bars certain public employees from picketing. The law requires that all labor agreements negotiated between a "public body" and a labor organization "shall expressly prohibit all strikes and picketing of any kind." The law further mandates that such agreements provide for the "immediate termination" of "any public employee who...pickets over any personnel matter." "Public body" is broadly defined in the law to include "the state of Missouri, or any officer, agency, department, bureau, division, board or commission of the state, or any other political subdivision or special district of or within the state"; accordingly, the law may apply to many labor agreements. While "picketing" is not defined under the law, Missouri Code elsewhere refers to "picketing or other organized protests" as "constitutionally protected activity," indicating that picketing as used in HB 1413 includes protests and demonstrations unrelated to labor strikes. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 3 Jan 2018; Approved by House 12 February 2018; approved by Senate 16 May 2018; Signed by Governor Greitens 1 June 2018

Issue(s):

return to map
Missouri

HB 2218: Imposing costs of protest damage on organizers and sponsors

Would create new civil cause of action against any person who “sponsors or organizes” a protest or demonstration that causes property or personal damage. Under the bill, if a protest results in property damage, or if it blocks a highway or emergency vehicle, resulting in property damage or personal injury, “any person” who sponsored or organized the protest is liable for damage costs. The bill does not require that the organizer or sponsor have any role in causing the damage or injury, or any intent or knowledge that damage or injury would occur during the protest, in order to be liable.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 4 Jan 2024.

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

return to map
Missouri

SB 684: Broad definition of "riot" and heightened penalties

Would redefine “rioting” and increase the penalties for a number of criminal offenses that can cover and deter peaceful protest activity. Under the bill, a person engages in “rioting” if they knowingly gather with 6 or more people and violate any Missouri or federal law. By contrast, current state law additionally requires an agreement among the group to violate a law, prior to the violation taking place. Current law also requires that the violation be accompanied by “force or violence.” Without these requirements--i.e., under the bill--someone who committed even a minor misdemeanor could be guilty of “rioting” if they were standing with 6 other people. The bill would also increase penalties for “peace disturbance”--a broadly-defined offense that includes “unreasonably and knowingly disturb[ing]” someone by “loud noise,” or “purposely caus[ing] inconvenience” by “unreasonably” obstructing vehicle or pedestrian traffic. The bill would make first offenses a Class A misdemeanor, and subsequent offenses a Class E felony. As such, someone in a noisy protest or a demonstrator who “unreasonably” blocked a sidewalk could face up to one year in jail for the first offense, and up to 4 years in prison for subsequent incidents. Under the bill, “refusal to disperse” would be a Class A, rather than Class C, misdemeanor. As a result, someone who refuses to leave the scene of an “unlawful assembly” or “riot,” after being ordered by police to do so, could face up to one year--rather than 15 days--in jail. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 28 Feb 2023.

Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference

return to map
Missouri

HB 1914: New penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would increase the penalty for obstructing a public street or highway to a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail. A second offense would be a Class E felony, punishable by one to four years in prison. If a person commits "unlawful traffic interference" on an interstate highway, it is a Class E felony, punishable on the first offense by a suspended sentence of probation for five years, 100 hours of community service, and a fine of up to $750. The offense of traffic interference on any public street, highway, or interstate highway while part of an "unlawful assembly" is a class D felony. For a first offence the court shall impose a term of supervised probation of five years, one hundred hours of community service, and a fine of up to $1,000. An "unlawful assembly" is defined under the bill as two or more persons meeting with the purpose of violating any law, which presumably could include the prohibition on traffic interference. The same bill was introduced as HB 1441 in the 2021 session. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Dec 2021; Prefiled for the 2022 session

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Missouri

HB 1441: New penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would increase the penalty for obstructing a public street or highway to a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail. A second offense would be a Class E felony, punishable by one to four years in prison. If a person commits "unlawful traffic interference" on an interstate highway, it is a Class E felony, punishable on the first offense by a suspended sentence of probation for five years, 100 hours of community service, and a fine of up to $750. The offense of traffic interference on any public street, highway, or interstate highway while part of an "unlawful assembly" is a class D felony. For a first offence the court shall impose a term of supervised probation of five years, one hundred hours of community service, and a fine of up to $1,000. An "unlawful assembly" is defined under the bill as two or more persons meeting with the purpose of violating any law, such as the prohibition on traffic interference. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 1 Mar 2021.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Missouri

SB 66: New penalties for protesters, and shields for those who commit violence against them

Would introduce a raft of new provisions affecting protesters, including civil immunity for drivers who injure protesters and a new affirmative defense for other acts of violence against protesters. The bill provides that a driver who injures someone who was "blocking traffic in a public right-of way while participating in a protest or demonstration" is not liable for damages, if the driver was "exercising due care." The bill would also expand Missouri's "Stand Your Ground" law, allowing a person to use deadly force against someone who is participating in an "unlawful assembly" and who unlawfully enters or attempts to enter private property that is owned or leased by the person. The bill introduces a series of new penalties for conduct associated with some protests: Protesters who block traffic could be charged with a new felony offense (up to 4 years in prison and a $10,000 fine) for intentionally walking, standing, sitting, kneeling, laying or placing an object in a manner that "blocks passage by a vehicle on any public street, highway, or interstate highway." The offense would be a Class D felony (7 years and $10,000) if committed "as part of an unlawful assembly." Under the bill, a person who "causes emotional distress to another person while participating in an unlawful assembly," is guilty of second-degree harassment, punishable in most cases as a Class E felony (4 years and $10,000). Under the bill, protesters who vandalized, defaced, or otherwise damaged public monuments or structures on public property could be charged with "institutional vandalism," a Class B felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison. Finally, the bill would create a new offense of "conspiring with others to cause or produce a riot or unlawful assembly," defined as knowingly providing payment or "other financial incentive" to six or more people to violate the Missouri laws against rioting or unlawful assembly. The new offense would be a Class E felony (4 years and $10,000). (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 1 Dec 2020.

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Driver Immunity, Riot, Traffic Interference, Trespass

return to map
Missouri

HB 56: Eliminating civil and criminal liability for drivers who hit protesters

Would shield a driver from civil and criminal liability for injuring someone who was participating in an "unlawful or riotous assemblage," if the driver was fleeing from the "unlawful or riotous assemblage" and "reasonably believed" they were in danger. If enacted, the bill would allow a driver to evade civil damages and criminal penalties for intentionally hitting and even killing a protester, if the driver "reasonably believed" they were in any danger. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 1 Dec 2020.

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Riot

return to map
Missouri

SB 9: Heightened penalties for blocking roads

Would criminalize protests that block traffic as "unlawful traffic interference" and provide for harsh penalties. Under the bill, a person's intentional blocking of traffic on a public street or highway, whether with her body or an object, is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and a $2,000 fine. If the offense is repeated, or takes place on an interstate highway, it is a Class E felony, punishable by up to four years in jail and a $10,000 fine. If the offense is committed while the person is part of an unlawful assembly, it is a Class D felony, which is punishable by up to seven years in prison and a $5,000 fine. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 27 Jul 2020.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Missouri

SB 293: New penalties for protests near critical infrastructure

Would heighten potential penalties for protests near oil or gas pipelines and other infrastructure facilities, including those under construction. The bill creates the offense of "willful critical infrastructure trespass," defined as willfully entering property containing a critical infrastructure facility or the construction site of such a facility, without permission of the property's owner or lawful occupant. Under the bill, willful critical infrastructure trespass is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of $1,000. A person who willfully trespasses with the intent to "impede or inhibit" the infrastructure facility or construction site is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of $2,000. The bill also provides that an organization found to be a "conspirator" with anyone convicted of the above offenses is liable to a fine of ten times that levied on the individual. "Critical infrastructure facility" is broadly defined and among many other things includes oil and gas pipelines, refineries, water treatment plants, cell phone towers, and railroad tracks--"whether under construction or operational." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 24 Jan 2019.

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure

return to map
Missouri

HB 442: Mandatory sanctions for campus protesters

Would expand the state's 2015 "Campus Free Expression Act" to include provisions requiring universities to impose specific, mandatory penalties on certain campus protesters. The bill--identical to HB 2423, introduced in 2018--provides that any student who is twice found responsible for "infringing upon the expressive rights of others" should be suspended for at least one year or expelled. The bill also calls for a "range of disciplinary sanctions" to be imposed on anyone under the university's jurisdiction who "materially and substantially interferes with the free expression of others." As in HB 2423, HB 442 also waives Missouri's immunity from federal lawsuits related to the law, such that a speaker or student group who feels the law is insufficiently enforced could sue the state and/or university in federal or state court. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Jan 2019.

Issue(s): Campus Protests

return to map
Missouri

HB 288: Expanded definition for "unlawful assembly" and new penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would dramatically increase potential penalties for individuals who protest on public streets or highways, by expanding the definition of "unlawful assembly" and creating the crime of "unlawful traffic interference." The bill broadly defines an "unlawful assembly" as two or more people who meet "for the purpose of violating any of the criminal laws" of Missouri or the U.S. (Current Missouri law requires six people who assemble to violate criminal laws with force or violence.) The bill provides that commission of unlawful traffic interference while participating in an unlawful assembly is a Class D felony, which is subject to up to seven years in prison. Prefiled on December 18, 2018, in advance of the 2019 session, the bill is substantially the same as the expired bill HB 2145, but would make a first offense of unlawful traffic interference while participating in an unlawful assembly subject to a suspended sentence, with supervised probation for five years, 100 hours of community service, and a fine of up to $1,000. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 4 Jan 2019.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Missouri

HB 2423: Mandatory sanctions for campus protesters

Would expand the state's 2015 "Campus Free Expression Act," which banned so-called campus "free speech zones," to include provisions requiring universities to impose specific, mandatory penalties on certain campus protesters. The bill provides that any student who is twice found responsible for "infringing upon the expressive rights of others" should be suspended for at least one year or expelled. The bill also calls for a "range of disciplinary sanctions" to be imposed on anyone under the university's jurisdiction who "materially and substantially interferes with the free expression of others." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 8 Feb 2018.

Issue(s): Campus Protests

return to map
Missouri

HB 2145: Expanded definition for "unlawful assembly" and new penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would broadly define an "unlawful assembly" as two or more people who meet "for the purpose of violating any of the criminal laws" of Missouri or the U.S. The bill also creates a new crime of "unlawful traffic interference" that encompasses walking, sitting, standing, lying down, or placing an object on any public roadway with the intention of impeding traffic. The bill provides that commission of "unlawful traffic interference" while participating in an "unlawful assembly" is a Class D felony, which is subject to up to seven years in prison. The bill was originally introduced on February 2, 2017 as HB 826. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 17 Jan 2018.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Missouri

SB 813: Heightened penalties for protesters who block highways

Would impose steeper penalties, including jail time, for protesters who block highways or emergency medical vehicles. The bill makes the offense of "peace disturbance" by obstructing traffic--already a Class B misdemeanor under Missouri law--a Class A misdemeanor on first offense if occurring on an interstate highway or thruway of an emergency medical services vehicle. Commission of the offense is subject to an automatic fine of up to $5,000 or 7-30 days in jail. The bill would also make offenders civilly liable to any person harmed, for monetary damages.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 3 Jan 2018.

Issue(s): Civil Liability, Traffic Interference

return to map
Missouri

HB 1259: Heightened penalties for blocking traffic

Would criminalize protests that block traffic as "unlawful traffic interference" and provide for harsh penalties. Under the bill, a person's intentional blocking of traffic on a public street or highway, whether with her body or an object, is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine. If the offense is repeated, or takes place on an interstate highway, it may be charged as a Class E felony. If the offense is committed while the person is part of an "unlawful assembly" (defined as "two or more persons who meet for the purpose of violating any of the criminal laws" of Missouri or the US), it is a Class D felony, punishable by up to four years in prison and a $5,000 fine. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 1 Dec 2017.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Missouri

HB 179: New penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

Would criminalize intentionally concealing one's identity while participating in an "unlawful assembly" or rioting. Under the bill, a person who intentionally conceals his or her identity "by the means of a robe, mask, or other disguise" while engaged in an unlawful assembly could be charged with a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail. The bill exempts identity-concealing coverings for the purposes of religion, safety, or medical needs. The Missouri legislature's website indicates that wearing a "hood" would also be included in criminalized coverings, although this language does not appear in the current wording of the bill. The bill expired with the end of the 2017 legislative session. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 4 Jan 2017.

Issue(s): Face Covering

return to map
Missouri

SB 26: heightened penalties for blocking roads

Note: This bill received later amendments that removed entirely the provisions related to "unlawful traffic interference". Would criminalize protests that block traffic as "unlawful traffic interference" and provide for harsh penalties. Like SB 9, introduced in the 2020 session, the bill would criminalize a person's intentional blocking of traffic on a public street or highway, whether with her body or an object, as a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and a $2,000 fine. If the offense is repeated, or takes place on an interstate highway, it is a Class E felony, punishable by up to four years in jail and a $10,000 fine. If the offense is committed while the person is part of an "unlawful assembly," it is a Class D felony, which is punishable by up to seven years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Missouri law currently defines an "unlawful assembly" as a gathering of at least six people in order to violate a law with force or violence. The bill would broaden this definition to include a gathering of two or more people to violate any law, with or without force or violence. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted with improvements

Introduced 1 Dec 2020; Approved by Senate 25 February 2021; Approved by House 4 May 2021

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Montana

HB 481: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines

Heightens penalties for protests near oil pipelines and other "critical infrastructure facilities," including those under construction. The law creates an offense of trespassing on critical infrastructure, defined as willfully and knowingly entering property containing a critical infrastructure facility that is posted or fenced. The offense is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 6 months in jail or a $1,500 fine. If a person trespasses with the intent to willfully impede the facility's operations, or damage, deface, or tamper with facility equipment, the offense is a felony punishable by up to eighteen months in prison or a $4,500 fine. An organization that is found to be a conspirator in trespass on critical infrastructure is liable for fines that are ten times the amount authorized for the crime. A person who trespasses can be held civilly liable for damages to property while trespassing, and an entity or person that compensates or provides consideration to someone for trespass may be held vicariously liable for damages committed by that person. "Critical infrastructure facility" is broadly defined and among many other things includes oil and gas pipelines, refineries, water treatment plants, railroad tracks, and telephone poles.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 18 Feb 2021; Approved by House 2 March 2021; Approved by Senate 16 April 2021; Governor Signed 14 May 2021

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

return to map
Montana

HB 571: Harsh penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

Would make it a felony offense to conceal one's identity by wearing a mask for the purpose of avoiding identification while committing an offense against public order. Concealing one's identity in this situation is punishable by up to five years in jail or a fine of $5,000. In Montana, an offense against the public order includes minor and broadly defined crimes like creating a public nuisance or disorderly conduct, meaning a protester who wore a mask and was charged with one of these crimes could also face a felony offense under this bill. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 27 Feb 2017.

Issue(s): Face Covering

return to map
Nebraska

LB 111: Broad new penalties for "riot"-related offenses and disruptive protests

The bill would create a sweeping new "riot" offense, with steep penalties for participating in, organizing, advocating for, or assisting a riot. The bill defines "riot" as a group of three or more whose "tumultuous and violent conduct" creates "grave danger" of property damage or serious injury, or "substantially obstructs law enforcement or another governmental function." The bill prohibits "participation" in a riot, which includes not only joining a riot, but "aiding and abetting" a riot, or "refusing any lawful order" by law enforcement. It is likewise prohibited under the bill to "advocate for or urge or organize" a riot. If the riot results in serious bodily injury or property damage, a person can be charged with a Class IV felony for the above offenses, regardless of whether the person had any role in the injury or damage, and sentenced to up to two years in prison. In all other cases the offenses are Class I misdemeanors, punishable by up to one year in jail. The bill precludes bail for any one charged with "any crime" arising out of a riot. The bill also affects protests on streets and sidewalks, as it creates a new offense for any person who intentionally or recklessly obstructs a highway, street, sidewalk, aisle, hallway, or any other "public way," whether on their own or with others. "Obstruct" is defined as rendering the public way "impassable" or "unreasonably inconvenient." The offense, which could cover peaceful protests that take place on or spill over onto sidewalks and streets, would be a Class I misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail. The bill would also make it unlawful to intentionally and substantially "obstruct or interfere with" a "lawful meeting, procession, or gathering." The offense, which would presumably cover peaceful but disruptive protests at e.g. government hearings, would be a Class II misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail. Finally, the bill also creates new Class 1 misdemeanor offenses for "unauthorized application of graffiti" on state property, where "graffiti" is defined broadly enough to encompass chalk and other temporary markings applied as part of a peaceful protest.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 7 Jan 2021.

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

return to map
Nevada

AB 168: New felony penalties for unlawful protests and protests that block traffic, as well as penalties for protest funders and organizers

Would impose Class E felony penalties for participating in an "assembly to disturb the public peace," an "unlawful assembly," a "rout," or a "riot," if committed by a group of seven or more people. Under current Nevada law, all four offenses are misdemeanors if committed by two or more people. An "unlawful assembly," for instance, is defined as two or more people who meet to do an unlawful act, but disperse without doing it. Under the bill, a group of seven who do so are guilty of a Class E felony, punishable by at least one and up to 4 years in prison. The bill would also increase the penalty for obstructing any road, street, or alley, from a misdemeanor to a Class E felony, if it occurs during an "assembly to disturb the public peace," an "unlawful assembly," a "rout" or a "riot." Under the bill, a driver who injures or kills someone who was unlawfully obstructing a road, street or alley during an "assembly to disturb the public peace," an "unlawful assembly," a "rout" or a "riot," would not be civilly liable if they were exercising "due care." Under the bill, it would also be a Class E felony instead of a gross misdemeanor to vandalize, place graffiti on or otherwise deface property if committed during a "riot." The bill creates a new Class E felony offense for knowingly or intentionally providing "material support" with the intent that the support will be used in or for an "assembly to disturb the public peace," an "unlawful assembly," or a "rout" or "riot." "Material support" is broadly defined to include “any financial, logistical, informational or other support or assistance," such that someone who gives directions to someone in a 3-person "unlawful assembly" could face felony charges.The bill would also expand Nevada's racketeering law, to cover racketeering activity in furtherance of an "assembly to disturb the public peace," an "unlawful assembly," a "rout" or a "riot," resulting in potential new penalties for protest organizers. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 23 Feb 2021.

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

return to map
New Hampshire

HB 197: Legal defense for the use of deadly force against protesters

Would create a new legal justification for using deadly force against protesters. As introduced, the bill would expand New Hampshire's self-defense statutes to justify a person's use of deadly force against someone who they believe is "likely" to use "any unlawful force" while committing a "riot" against someone in a vehicle, house, or curtilage. The introduced bill justifies deadly force against someone who is "likely" to use "any" amount of force while committing "riot"--including against a third party. **Note: The bill was amended prior to its passage by the House, extending the self-defense justification to instances where deadly force against someone likely to use "any unlawful force in the commission of a felony against a person in a vehicle," rather than in the commission of a "riot".** (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 6 Jan 2021; Approved by House 25 February 2021

Issue(s): Riot, Stand Your Ground

return to map
New Jersey

S 3578: New Penalties for Protesters Who Conceal Their Identity

Would create a new disorderly persons offense "for a person, while congregating in a public place with other people who are also masked or disguised, to wear any mask or other facial obscurant or disguise with the purpose to conceal the person's identity while committing another crime or offense." The bill creates exemptions for activities related to Halloween, the weather, religious beliefs, medical purposes, or a public parade of an educational, religious, or historical character. However, it does not create an exemption for protests. As such, one engaged in identical conduct during a Halloween celebration and a protest would not face criminal liability under this proposed offense during the Halloween celebration, but could face criminal liability under this proposed offense during a demonstration. The penalty under the bill is up to 6 months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 19 Sep 2024.

Issue(s): Face Covering

return to map
New Jersey

S 834 / A 3489: NEW PENALTIES FOR BLOCKING TRAFFIC AND OTHER PROTEST-ADJACENT CONDUCT

Would make it a felony offense to purposely or recklessly obstruct a public road while engaging in "disorderly conduct" or a "riot," punishable by up to a year and a half in prison and a $10,000 fine. Both "disorderly conduct" and "riot" are defined broadly under New Jersey law: "Disorderly conduct," for instance, could include "recklessly creating a risk of public inconvenience" by causing a "hazardous condition," or using "unreasonably loud and offensively coarse" language in a public place. The bill would also broaden the definition of "riot," such that a group of five or more people who engage in "disorderly conduct" and cause any damage to property or persons could face riot charges, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and $15,000. Individuals who deface a monument during an unruly protest would also face heightened penalties under the bill: Current law penalizes defacing or damaging any public monument or structure as a disorderly persons offense, subject to six months in jail. The bill would make the same offense a felony punishable by a year and a half in prison and $10,000, if committed during a "riot." The bill would create new sanctions for protest organizers and patrons, as well: Under the bill, a person who "conspires with others as an organizer, supervisor, financier or manager to commit" one of a number of crimes during a protest would be guilty of "promotion of violent, disorderly assembly" and face enhanced criminal penalties. The text was introduced as S3261 during the 2020-2021 session, and as S1783/A4577 during the 2022-2023 session.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 9 Jan 2024.

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

return to map
New Jersey

S 652: HEIGHTENED PENALTIES FOR BLOCKING TRAFFIC, RIOT, DISORDERLY CONDUCT, AND RELATED OFFENSES

Would make it a felony offense to purposely or recklessly obstruct a public road while engaging in "disorderly conduct" or a "riot," punishable by up to 18 months in prison and a $10,000 fine. Both "disorderly conduct" and "riot" are defined broadly under New Jersey law: "Disorderly conduct," for instance, could include "recklessly creating a risk" of "public inconvenience" by causing a "hazardous condition," or using "unreasonably loud and offensively coarse" language in a public place. The bill would also broaden the definition of "riot," such that a group of seven or more people who engage in "disorderly conduct" and cause any damage to property could face riot charges, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and $15,000. The bill would create a new felony offense for disorderly conduct in a "place of public accommodation" that is committed during a "riot." It would also establish a felony offense for chalking or using graffiti on a public monument during an unruly protest: Current law penalizes purposely defacing or damaging any public monument or structure as a disorderly persons offense, subject to six months in jail. The bill would make the same offense a felony punishable by a year and a half in prison and $10,000, if committed during a "riot." The same bill was proposed as S84/A456 in the 2022-2023 session. 

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 9 Jan 2024.

Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference

return to map
New Jersey

S 399: EXPANDED "RIOT" DEFINITION, NEW PENALTIES FOR "INCITEMENT TO RIOT", AND NEW LEGAL DEFENSE FOR PEOPLE WHO HURT PROTESTERS

Would expand the legal definition of "riot," a third degree offense under the bill, to include any group of three or more individuals whose shared intent to engage in disorderly and violent conduct results in "imminent danger" of property damage or personal injury, or actual damage or injury. Notably, the new definition does not require that the individuals' conduct be disorderly or violent, or that they commit any actual damage or injury. Under the bill, a "riot" consisting of 25 or more people, or one that "endangers the safe movement of a vehicle," is automatically an "aggravated riot," a new crime of the second degree under the bill. As such, large groups of protesters or ones that block traffic, even temporarily, could face up to 10 years in prison, a fine of up to $150,000, or both. Under the bill, "inciting" someone to participate in a riot is a crime of the third degree, punishable by 5 years in prison. "Aggravated incitement," which results if there is property damage over $5,000 is a crime of the second degree, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The bill also creates a new criminal offense of "mob intimidation," defined as a group of three or more people who act with a "common intent" to compel "or attempt to compel" another person to "do or refrain from doing any act," or "assume, abandon, or maintain a particular viewpoint" against their will. The offense is punishable by up to 6 months in jail and a $1,000 fine. The bill could also encourage violence against protesters by creating a new affirmative defense in civil lawsuits for personal injury, death, or property damage, such that a defendant could avoid liability by establishing that the injury, death, or damage they committed "arose from" conduct by someone "acting in furtherance of a riot." Finally, the bill creates a new civil right of action against a municipal government that fails to provide "respond appropriately to protect persons and property during a riot or unlawful assembly," making them civilly liable for damages, including personal injury or property damage. These provisions, if enacted, could encourage municipal governments to adopt overly aggressive law enforcement responses to protests in order to avoid lawsuits. The same bill was proposed as S3992 in the 2020-2021 session, and as S1206 in the 2022-2023 session.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 9 Jan 2024.

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Riot, Traffic Interference, State Liability, Stand Your Ground

return to map
New Jersey

A 4577 / S 1783: NEW PENALTIES FOR BLOCKING TRAFFIC AND OTHER PROTEST-ADJACENT CONDUCT

Would make it a felony offense to purposely or recklessly obstruct a public road while engaging in "disorderly conduct" or a "riot," punishable by up to a year and a half in prison and a $10,000 fine. Both "disorderly conduct" and "riot" are defined broadly under New Jersey law: "Disorderly conduct," for instance, could include "recklessly creating a risk of public inconvenience" by causing a "hazardous condition," or using "unreasonably loud and offensively coarse" language in a public place. The bill would also broaden the definition of "riot," such that a group of five or more people who engage in "disorderly conduct" and cause any damage to property or persons could face riot charges, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and $15,000. Individuals who deface a monument during an unruly protest would also face heightened penalties under the bill: Current law penalizes defacing or damaging any public monument or structure as a disorderly persons offense, subject to six months in jail. The bill would make the same offense a felony punishable by a year and a half in prison and $10,000, if committed during a "riot." The bill would create new sanctions for protest organizers and patrons, as well: Under the bill, a person who "conspires with others as an organizer, supervisor, financier or manager to commit" one of a number of crimes during a protest would be guilty of "promotion of violent, disorderly assembly" and face enhanced criminal penalties. The text was introduced as S3261 during the 2020-2021 session.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 22 Sep 2022.

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

return to map
New Jersey

S 1206: Expanded "riot" definition, new penalties for "incitement to riot", and new legal defense for people who hurt protesters

Expands the legal definition of "riot," a third degree offense under the bill, to include any group of three or more individuals whose shared intent to engage in disorderly and violent conduct results in "imminent danger" of property damage or personal injury, or actual damage or injury. Notably, the new definition does not require that the individuals' conduct be disorderly or violent, or that they commit any actual damage or injury. Under the bill, a "riot" consisting of 25 or more people, or one that "endangers the safe movement of a vehicle," is automatically an "aggravated riot," a new crime of the second degree under the bill. As such, large groups of protesters or ones that block traffic, even temporarily, could face up to 10 years in prison, a fine of up to $150,000, or both. Under the bill, "inciting" someone to participate in a riot is a crime of the third degree, punishable by 5 years in prison. "Aggravated incitement," which results if there is property damage over $5,000 is a crime of the second degree, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The bill also creates a new criminal offense of "mob intimidation," defined as a group of three or more people who act with a "common intent" to compel "or attempt to compel" another person to "do or refrain from doing any act," or "assume, abandon, or maintain a particular viewpoint" against their will. The offense is punishable by up to 6 months in jail and a $1,000 fine. The bill could also encourage violence against protesters by creating a new affirmative defense in civil lawsuits for personal injury, death, or property damage, such that a defendant could avoid liability by establishing that the injury, death, or damage they committed "arose from" conduct by someone "acting in furtherance of a riot." Finally, the bill creates a new civil right of action against a municipal government that fails to provide "respond appropriately to protect persons and property during a riot or unlawful assembly," making them civilly liable for damages, including personal injury or property damage. These provisions, if enacted, could encourage municipal governments to adopt overly aggressive law enforcement responses to protests in order to avoid lawsuits. The same bill was proposed as S3992 in the 2020-2021 session.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 3 Feb 2022.

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Riot, Traffic Interference, State Liability, Stand Your Ground

return to map
New Jersey

A 456 / S 84: HEIGHTENED PENALTIES FOR BLOCKING TRAFFIC, RIOT, DISORDERLY CONDUCT, AND RELATED OFFENSES

Would make it a felony offense to purposely or recklessly obstruct a public road while engaging in "disorderly conduct" or a "riot," punishable by up to 18 months in prison and a $10,000 fine. Both "disorderly conduct" and "riot" are defined broadly under New Jersey law: "Disorderly conduct," for instance, could include "recklessly creating a risk" of "public inconvenience" by causing a "hazardous condition," or using "unreasonably loud and offensively coarse" language in a public place. The bill would also broaden the definition of "riot," such that a group of seven or more people who engage in "disorderly conduct" and cause any damage to property could face riot charges, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and $15,000. The bill would create a new felony offense for disorderly conduct in a "place of public accommodation" that is committed during a "riot." It would also establish a felony offense for chalking or using graffiti on a public monument during an unruly protest: Current law penalizes purposely defacing or damaging any public monument or structure as a disorderly persons offense, subject to six months in jail. The bill would make the same offense a felony punishable by a year and a half in prison and $10,000, if committed during a "riot."

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 11 Jan 2022.

Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference

return to map
New Jersey

S 3992: Expanded "riot" definition, new penalties for "incitement to riot", and new legal defense for people who hurt protesters

Would enlarge the legal definition of "riot," a crime of the third degree, to include any group of three or more individuals whose shared intent to engage in disorderly and violent conduct results in "imminent danger" of property damage or personal injury, or actual damage or injury. Notably, the new definition does not require that the individuals' conduct be disorderly or violent, or that they commit any actual damage or injury. Under the new law, a "riot" consisting of 25 or more people, or one that "endangers the safe movement of a vehicle," is automatically an "aggravated riot," a new crime of the second degree under the law. As such, large groups of protesters or ones that block traffic, even temporarily, could face up to 10 years in prison, a fine of up to $150,000, or both. Under the new law, "inciting" someone to participate in a riot is a crime of the third degree, punishable by 5 years in prison. "Aggravated incitement," which results if there is property damage over $5,000 is a crime of the second degree, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The law also creates a new criminal offense of "mob intimidation," defined as a group of three or more people who act with a "common intent" to compel "or attempt to compel" another person to "do or refrain from doing any act," or "assume, abandon, or maintain a particular viewpoint" against their will. The offense is a disorderly persons offense, punishable by up to 6 months imprisonment, a fine of $1000, or both. The law creates a new crime of the third degree, punishable by up to 5 years in prison, for anyone who "purposefully, knowingly, or recklessly defaces, injures, or otherwise damages" statues, flags, paintings, displays, or other "memorials" and the value of the damage is more than $200. As "deface" is not defined, protesters who apply paint or graffiti to a monument in the course of a peaceful protest could face up to 5 years in prison. Someone convicted of the crime also must pay restitution of the full cost to repair or replace the monument. Further, the law could encourage violence against protesters, by creating a new affirmative defense in civil lawsuits for personal injury, death, or property damage, such that a defendant could avoid liability by establishing that the injury, death, or damage they committed "arose from" conduct by someone "acting in furtherance of a riot." Finally, the law creates a new civil right of action against a municipal government that fails to provide "respond appropriately to protect persons and property during a riot or unlawful assembly," making them civilly liable for damages, including personal injury or property damage. These provisions, if enacted, could encourage municipal governments to adopt overly aggressive law enforcement responses to protests in order to avoid lawsuits.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 24 Jun 2021.

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Police Response, Riot, Traffic Interference, Stand Your Ground

return to map
New Jersey

S 3261: New penalties for blocking traffic and other protest-adjacent conduct

Would make it a felony offense to purposely or recklessly obstruct a public road while engaging in "disorderly conduct" or a "riot," punishable by up to a year and a half in prison and a $10,000 fine. Both "disorderly conduct" and "riot" are defined broadly under New Jersey law: "Disorderly conduct," for instance, could include "recklessly creating a risk of public inconvenience" by causing a "hazardous condition," or using "unreasonably loud and offensively coarse" language in a public place. The bill would also broaden the definition of "riot," such that a group of five or more people who engage in "disorderly conduct" and cause any damage to property or persons could face riot charges, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and $15,000. Individuals who deface a monument during an unruly protest would also face heightened penalties under the bill: Current law penalizes defacing or damaging any public monument or structure as a disorderly persons offense, subject to six months in jail. The bill would make the same offense a felony punishable by a year and a half in prison and $10,000, if committed during a "riot." The bill would create new sanctions for protest organizers and patrons, as well: Under the bill, a person who "conspires with others as an organizer, supervisor, financier or manager to commit" one of a number of crimes during a protest would be guilty of "promotion of violent, disorderly assembly" and face enhanced criminal penalties. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 10 Dec 2020.

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

return to map
New Jersey

A 4991 / S 4028: Heightened penalties for blocking traffic, riot, disorderly conduct, and related offenses

Would create a new offense for blocking a highway or any "other public passage" in the course of a riot or disorderly conduct. The offense would be a fourth-degree crime, punishable by 1.5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. (Under current law, blocking a highway or any other passage is a petty disorderly persons offense, punishable by up to 6 months in jail.) The bill would also create a new offense for disorderly conduct committed during a riot in a "place of public accommodation." The offense would also be a fourth-degree crime. The bill would create a new offense for "desecration of venerable objects" during a riot--also a fourth-degree crime. "Venerable objects" includes "any public monument, insignia, symbol, or structure," and "desecrate" includes "defacing" as well as "toppling." New Jersey currently defines "riot" as participation in disorderly conduct by a group of five or more people with an unlawful purpose. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 16 Nov 2020.

Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference

return to map
New Jersey

A 3760: Expanded definition of "riot"

Would expand the definition of "riot" to apply to individuals in a group whose disorderly conduct results in property damage. Under the bill, anyone who participates in "disorderly conduct" in a group of four or more may be charged with rioting, if anyone in the group causes any damage to property or other monetary loss. "Disorderly conduct" is broadly defined under New Jersey law, to include any "tumultuous behavior" that causes public annoyance-even swearing loudly. If the damage caused by anyone in the group costs $2,000 or more, anyone in the group can be charged with a third-degree crime, which is punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of $15,000. According to the bill, individuals convicted under the riot provisions related to property damage must also reimburse the property owner or State of New Jersey for the damages or loss incurred. The same bill was initially introduced in May 2017 as AB 4777, and again in 2018 as AB 2853.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 6 Mar 2020.

Issue(s): Riot

return to map
New Jersey

A 5731: Mandatory penalties for campus protesters

Would create mandatory disciplinary sanctions that could be applied to peaceful protesters on college and university campuses. The bill requires all public institutions of higher education to adopt a policy that bars members of the campus community from engaging in conduct that "materially and substantially disrupts another person's expressive activity or infringes on the rights of others to engage in or listen to expressive activity." Under the required policy, any member of the campus community that has twice materially and substantially disrupted the expressive rights of others--such as by protesting a controversial speaker--must be given a minimum punishment of a one-term suspension. If a lesser punishment is imposed, the institution has to submit an explanation in writing to the institution's Committee on Free Expression. The bill also requires that "a range of disciplinary sanctions" be imposed for anyone under the jurisdiction of the institution who materially and substantially disrupts the free expression of others. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 23 Aug 2019.

Issue(s): Campus Protests

return to map
New Jersey

AB 4777: Expanded definition of "riot"

Would expand the definition of "riot" to include group conduct that damages property. Under the bill, an individual's participation in "disorderly conduct" with four or more people that results in property damage or monetary loss would constitute a riot. The bill provides that, if such damage or loss is greater than $2,000, the offense is a third-degree crime, punishable by three to five years in prison and a fine of up to $15,000. Further, the bill would require that an individual convicted of riot under the new provision would have to reimburse the individual property owner or the state of New Jersey for damages incurred as a result of the riot. The bill expired with the end of the 2017 legislative session.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 11 May 2017.

Issue(s): Riot

return to map
New York

S 9194 / A 10043: New criminal penalties for masked protesters

Would create two new crimes that could apply to masked protesters and people who support them. Under the bill, a person who is masked or “disguised by unusual or unnatural attire or facial alteration,” who engages in a protest or other public assembly with other masked or disguised people, commits the offense of “deceptive wearing of a mask,” a Class B misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days in jail. The offense would likewise apply to anyone who “knowingly permits or aids” masked demonstrators who congregate in public. The offense does not require that an individual act unlawfully or have any intent to engage in unlawful behavior. A second offense, “aggravated deceptive wearing of a mask,” would apply to masked or disguised individuals engaged in a public assembly where property damage or injuries occur; the offense would be a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail. (As drafted, the bill does not make clear whether an individual need personally cause the damage or injury, or merely be part of a group where such damage or injury occurs, to commit the offense.) The bill provides exemptions for masks or disguises worn for religious purposes, or in connection with a government-authorized “masquerade party or like entertainment.” If enacted, the bill would give law enforcement broad discretion to arrest individuals who wear masks or other disguise at a public protest, as well as anyone who seemed to be “aiding” them.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 3 May 2024.

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Face Covering

return to map
New York

A 10057 / S 9867: New criminal penalties for masked protesters

Would make it illegal to wear a mask or other disguise during a protest. The bill would create a new criminal violation that would apply to someone “involved in a lawful assembly, unlawful assembly, or riot” who wears a hood, mask, or other devise that disguises their face “so as to conceal” their identity. The bill’s only exception to the offense is for “personal protective equipment,” such as masks, used to minimize exposure to a communicable disease during a declared public health emergency. As written the bill does not require that an individual act unlawfully or have any intent to engage in unlawful behavior. It would seemingly apply broadly to a someone wearing a costume in a Halloween parade or a peaceful protester wearing a mask to avoid retaliation for their political views. If enacted, the bill would give law enforcement substantial discretion to arrest anyone wearing a mask or other face covering at a protest.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 2 May 2024.

Issue(s): Face Covering, Riot

return to map
New York

S 8646: New penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would create a new criminal offense that could cover unpermitted protests and demonstrations on streets, sidewalks, or near public buildings. According to the bill, a person participating in a protest without a permit who “obstructs” cars or pedestrians, or prevents people from entering or exiting buildings, commits a new offense of “aggravated disorderly conduct” if they intend “to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm” or are “recklessly creating a risk thereof.” The offense would be a class A misdemeanor, punishable by one year in jail and $1,000. As written, an individual in a spontaneous protest that blocks a sidewalk, “recklessly creating a risk” of inconveniencing people, would be guilty of the offense. The bill would also add the offense to the underlying offenses that can be charged as a hate crime under New York law, and allow individuals arrested for the offense to be held for bail.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 26 Feb 2024.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
New York

A 8951: "Domestic terrorism" offense for protesters who block traffic

Would create a new felony “domestic terrorism” offense that could apply to nonviolent protesters who block roads or sidewalks. Under the bill, a person commits “domestic terrorism” if they “act with the intent to cause the deliberate blocking” of a public road, bridge, or tunnel that interferes with traffic or public safety. Notably, the bill does not require that the person actually block a road, only that they act with that intent, so that even planning or otherwise facilitating a street protest that would interfere with traffic could be covered by the offense. Further, for the purpose of the bill, “public road” is defined broadly to include “every class of public road, square and place,” including driveways, alleys, and sidewalks. If enacted, individuals who attend or organize a sidewalk protest that interferes with pedestrian traffic could face felony charges and up to 7 years in prison.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 30 Jan 2024.

Issue(s): Terrorism, Traffic Interference

return to map
New York

A 8334: CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR PROTESTS THAT DISTURB EVENTS OR MEETINGS

Would create a new serious misdemeanor offense, “disruption or disturbance of a lawful assembly,” that could cover protesters at private and public events. Under the bill, someone whose conduct “substantially impairs the ability to conduct” a lawful gathering, is intended to cause a disruption, and violates “the implicit customs or usage” or “explicit rules” of the meeting, commits a Class A misdemeanor—punishable by up to a year in jail and $1,000. Covered events include groups of just two or more individuals who reserve a space by paying a fee or filing an application, and use it for a peaceful and lawful gathering. If adopted, a protester who interrupts a city council meeting or other gathering of officials, or a private speaking event, could face a year in jail.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Dec 2023.

return to map
New York

A 2309: Mandatory Sanctions for Campus Protesters

Would create new mandatory penalties that could be applied against nonviolent protesters at all state and city colleges and universities in New York. Under the bill, a student that "materially and substantially disrupts the free expression of others" would face a minimum one week suspension for the first offense; a minimum two week suspension for a second offense; a minimum one semester suspension for a third offense; and expulsion for a fourth offense. As such, a student protester that was deemed to interrupt a speaker at an event would be required to be suspended.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 25 Jan 2023.

Issue(s): Campus Protests

return to map
New York

A 8342: Mandatory Sanctions for Campus Protesters

Would create new mandatory penalties that could be applied against nonviolent protesters at all state and city colleges and universities in New York. Under the bill, a student that "materially and substantially disrupts the free expression of others" would face a minimum one week suspension for the first offense; a minimum two week suspension for a second offense; a minimum one semester suspension for a third offense; and expulsion for a fourth offense. As such, a student protester that was deemed to interrupt a speaker at an event would be required to be suspended. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 20 Oct 2021.

Issue(s): Campus Protests

return to map
New York

A 5121 / S 4989: Heightened penalties for "incitement to riot"

Would increase the penalty for incitement to riot from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class E felony, punishable by up to 4 years in prison. Under current New York law, a person can be convicted of inciting a riot if "he urges ten or more persons to engage in tumultuous and violent conduct of a kind likely to create public alarm." The bill does not define what "urges" could include; similar language has been found by courts to be unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 11 Feb 2021.

Issue(s): Riot

return to map
New York

A 11069: Heightened Penalties for Riot and Incitement to Riot

Would enhance the penalties for first and second degree "riot" as well as "incitement to riot." Under New York Law, "incitement to riot" is broadly defined, and could cover a person or organization found to have "urged" a group of people to protest in a "tumultuous and violent" way. The bill would make the offense a Class E felony, punishable by up to four years in prison, instead of a Class A misdemeanor.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 7 Oct 2020.

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Riot

return to map
New York

A 10603: Heightened penalties for "riot" and "incitement to riot" by non-residents

Would heighten the penalties for "riot" and "incitement to riot" for defendants who are not New York residents, by creating two new criminal offenses. Under the bill, a non-resident who either commits "riot in the second degree" or "incitement to riot" is guilty of "travel to riot in the second degree," a Class E felony. Notably, New York law broadly defines "riot in the second degree" to include "tumultuous and violent conduct" with four or more people that "intentionally or recklessly...creates a grave risk of causing public alarm." A person is guilty of "incitement to riot" under New York law if he or she "urges" ten or more people "to engage in tumultuous and violent conduct of a kind likely to create public alarm." The bill creates an additional Class D felony for non-residents who commit first-degree riot. The bill was proposed after widespread protests in New York City following the killing of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 5 Jun 2020.

Issue(s): Riot

return to map
North Carolina

HB 237: Heightened penalties for street protesters and masked protesters

Increases penalties for protesters who block traffic and for masked protesters who break any law. The law makes it a Class A1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 150 days in jail and a fine, to willfully impede traffic while participating in a demonstration on a street or highway. Second and subsequent offenses would be a Class H felony, punishable by up to 25 months in prison. Under the law, “organizers” of street protests can be held civilly liable for any injury resulting from delays caused by the obstruction of an emergency vehicle. The law does not define “organizer,” such that anyone involved in the planning of a protest might be covered, nor does it require that the “organizer” have any intent or knowledge that an emergency vehicle would be obstructed. Additionally, the law narrows the health-related exception to North Carolina’s ban on wearing masks in public, requiring that a mask worn for health or safety reasons must be a “medical or surgical grade” mask worn “to prevent[] the spread of contagious disease.” The law broadens the authority of law enforcement and third parties to require someone to remove their masks in such cases. Under the law, someone convicted of any offense, including nonviolent protest-related offenses, can face steeper punishment if they were wearing a mask or other face covering at the time, regardless of the reason for doing so. The bill’s sponsor cited recent protests on college campuses against Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, where some protesters have worn masks.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 7 May 2024; Approved by Senate 15 May 2024; Approved by House 11 June 2024; Vetoed by Governor Cooper 21 June 2024; Veto overridden 27 June 2024

Issue(s): Civil Liability, Face Covering, Traffic Interference

return to map
North Carolina

HB 40: HEIGHTENED PENALTIES FOR "RIOT" AND RELATED OFFENSES

Increases the penalty for an individual who "incites or urges another to engage in a riot," if a riot occurs and results in $1,500 of property damage or injury. In such a case, the individual is guilty of a Class E felony, punishable by more than two years in prison, even if they did not personally cause any damage or injury. Under the law, an individual convicted of "riot" or incitement offenses is also civilly liable to anyone whose property or person was damaged by the riot, in the amount of three times the actual damage in addition to court costs and attorney’s fees. Preexisting North Carolina law defines riot to include a "public disturbance" by a group of three or more people that presents an "imminent threat of disorderly and violent conduct," resulting in a "clear and present danger" of property damage or injury. Under this definition, no violence or damage need occur for participants in a gathering to be arrested for and charged with "riot." While the new law would add a limitation requiring an “overt act” in order for someone to be convicted of a riot or incitement to riot offense, that requirement could be read broadly to include peaceful chanting or marching with a crowd that is deemed to be a “riot.” Finally, the law requires that a judge, rather than another judicial official, determine the pretrial release of an individual charged with a riot offense. The judge may hold the individual for 48 hours, and may require that they stay away from places where the "riot" occurred. The text of HB 40 is nearly identical to the amended version of HB 805 that passed both the North Carolina House and Senate in 2021 before being vetoed by the Governor.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 1 Feb 2023; Approved by House 8 February 2023; Approved by Senate 9 March 2023; Became law without Governor Cooper's signature 21 March 2023

Issue(s): Civil Liability, Riot

return to map
North Carolina

SB 58: New penalties for protests near pipelines

Introduces new potential criminal penalties and civil liability for peaceful protests near existing and planned pipelines and other energy infrastructure. The enacted version of the law makes it a Class C felony offense to knowingly and willfully “obstruct, impede, or impair” or “attempt to obstruct, impede, or impair” the services of an energy facility. The law defines “energy facility” to include any facility involved in the transmission of “electricity, fuel, or another form or source of energy,” including facilities that are under construction or otherwise not functioning. As such, a group of people protesting the construction of a fossil fuel pipeline could face more than 15 years in prison and a mandatory $250,000 fine if they impede or impair the construction of a pipeline, for instance by blocking workers’ access to the pipeline construction site. Under the law, such protesters, along with anyone who “aides or abets, solicits, conspires, or lends material support” to their act of impeding construction could also be sued in civil court by someone whose property was damaged, for an amount equivalent to three times the actual damage as well as court costs and attorneys' fees. 

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 1 Feb 2023; Approved by Senate 14 March 2023; Approved by House 14 June 2023; Signed by Governor Cooper 19 June 2023

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

return to map
North Carolina

HB 805: Heightened penalties for "riot" and related offenses

Would increase the penalty for an individual who engages in a "riot" if, "as a result of the riot," there is over $1,500 of property damage or serious bodily injury. Under this definition, the individual could be convicted of a Class F felony without having any role in property damage or injury. The bill increases the potential prison sentence from 25 months to 41 months. North Carolina law defines riot to include a "public disturbance" by a group of three or more people that presents an "imminent threat of disorderly and violent conduct," resulting in a "clear and present danger" of property damage or injury. In other words, no violence or damage need occur for participants in a gathering to be arrested for and charged with "riot." The bill also increases the penalty for an individual who "incites or urges another to engage in a riot," to a Class A1 misdemeanor, punishable by 5 months in jail, if a riot actually occurs or a "clear and present danger of a riot is created." If the riot does occur and results in $1,500 of property damage or injury (again, regardless of the individual's role), the individual is guilty of a Class E felony, punishable by up to 63 months in jail. Under the bill, an individual convicted of "riot" or incitement offenses is also liable to anyone whose property or person was damaged by the riot, in the amount of three times the actual damage in addition to court costs and attorney"s fees. Finally, the bill requires that a judge, rather than another judicial official, determine the pretrial release of an individual charged with a riot offense. The judge may hold the individual for 48 hours, and may require that they stay away from places where the "riot" occurred. Note that a later version of this bill amended the language so that to be convicted of Class F felony rioting one personally would need to cause property damage of over $1,500 or serious bodily injury. However, one could still be civilly liable for property damage or injury one did not cause.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 3 May 2021; Approved by House 10 May 2021; Approved by Senate 31 August 2021; Governor Veto 10 September 2021

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

return to map
North Carolina

SB 335: Heightened penalties for protesters who disrupt meetings

Would expand disorderly conduct to include disturbing the peace or order of an official meeting of a public body. A first offense would be a class one misdemeanor punishable by up to 120 days in jail. A second offense would be a Class 1 felony punishable by 3 to 12 months in jail. A third or subsequent offense would be a Class H felony punishable by 8 to 31 months in jail. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 23 Mar 2021.

return to map
North Carolina

HB 333: New penalties for campus protesters

Would require that a student who is found to have engaged in certain activity during a protest on a public university campus both be expelled and have their state financial aid revoked for at least one academic period. Covered activity includes anyone who "unlawfully write[s] or scribble[s] on, mark[s], deface[s], besmear[s], or injure[s] the walls of any public building," statue, or monument, as well as anyone who willfully damages public or private property of any kind on campus. As such, a student could be automatically expelled and lose financial aid for chalking a wall during a protest. Eligibility for readmission and reinstatement of aid would be based on restitution for the property damage committed by the student. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 17 Mar 2021.

Issue(s): Campus Protests

return to map
North Carolina

HB 321: Criminal and civil penalties for officials who withdraw police during protests

Would create new penalties for government officials who try to "stand down" police, including in response to protests and demonstrations. The bill broadly prohibits any elected official from "interfer[ing]" with law enforcement officers by causing or "attempt[ing] to cause" them not to enforce the law or not to defend persons or property. The bill's broad language could bar, for instance, a mayor from publicly encouraging police to respect protesters' rights and not use excessive force. Under the bill, an official who "interferes" with law enforcement in this way is subject to a $10,000 fine "per incident" and up to 30 days in jail. The bill also waives officials' immunity to civil suits in such cases if their "interference" with law enforcement's deployment results in property damage or personal injury. The bill provides that law enforcement officers are immune from civil and criminal penalties if they kill or injure another person "using reasonable force under the circumstances and acting in good faith to enforce the laws" of North Carolina. If enacted, these provisions could undermine local officials' ability to participate in decisions around the policing of protests and could incentivize aggressive police responses. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 16 Mar 2021.

Issue(s): Police Response, State Liability

return to map
North Carolina

SB 238: Local government liability for lax law enforcement response to protests

Would open the door to lawsuits against local government entities that withhold or delay law enforcement services during a protest. The bill prohibits mayors, city councils, county commissions, and any other "government entity" from "prevent[ing]" or "delay[ing]" law enforcement from accessing an area during a "public demonstration." Under the bill, government entities that violate the prohibition may be held liable for damages proximately caused by the withholding or delaying of law enforcement. If enacted, the bill would require local governments to immediately deploy law enforcement to all protests and demonstrations, or risk a costly lawsuit. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 10 Mar 2021.

Issue(s): Police Response, State Liability

return to map
North Carolina

HB 966: Limitations on teachers' ability to protest

Would restrict public school teachers' ability to use personal leave in order to protest. The provisions, proposed as part of a budget package, would prohibit schools from granting teachers leave on a school day unless they could confirm that a substitute teacher was available. Lawmakers introduced the provisions ahead of a Wednesday, May 1 rally expected to be attended by thousands of teachers from across the state, to protest for increased education funding. **Note: This provision teachers' personal leave was attached to an appropriations bill. The bill eventually was enacted, but this provision was removed in its entirety.** (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 26 Apr 2019.

Issue(s):

return to map
North Carolina

HB 330: Eliminating driver liability for hitting protesters

Would eliminate civil liability for the driver of an automobile who hits or otherwise injures a person participating in a protest or demonstration, if the person was blocking traffic in a public street or highway and did not have a permit to do so, and if the driver was exercising "due care." Civil liability is still available to the injured party if the driver acted intentionally. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 13 Mar 2017; Approved by House 27 April

Issue(s): Driver Immunity

return to map
North Carolina

SB 229: Heightened penalties for threats against former officials

Would substantially increase penalties for threats and assaults against former North Carolina officials on account of the official's performance. The bill extends by one year the term of office of former executive, legislative, and court officials for the purpose of criminal provisions related to assaults and threats made against officials that are in office. Accordingly, threatening to inflict serious injury on a former official would be classified as a Class I felony - rather than a misdemeanor - for a period of one year after the official's term in office. The offense would be subject to up to two years in prison. The bill was sponsored by State Senator Dan Bishop, who had pledged to introduce such legislation after an incident over Inauguration weekend in which protesters shouted at a former North Carolina governor, Pat McCrory, in Washington, D.C. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Mar 2017.

return to map
North Carolina

HB 249: Criminalizing certain protests as "economic terrorism"

Would have targeted protests that obstruct roadways by newly criminalizing "economic terrorism," defined as the willful or reckless commission of a criminal offense that impedes or disrupts the regular course of business and results in damages of over $1,000. Per the bill, commission of economic terrorism is a Class H felony, punishable by 4 to 25 months in prison. The bill also makes an individual participant civilly liable for the costs incurred by the state in responding to an unlawful assembly, riot, or obstruction of traffic (e.g., during a protest); the individual could be charged in a civil action for related legal, administrative, and court costs as well. Criminal penalties are heightened for individuals who obstruct traffic by standing, sitting, or lying in a street or highway, as well as for those who remain at the scene of a riot or unlawful assembly after being warned to disperse; under the bill, both are punishable by up to 150 days in jail and a discretionary fine.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 2 Mar 2017.

Issue(s): Civil Liability, Security Costs, Terrorism, Traffic Interference

return to map
North Carolina

SB 300: Heightened penalties for "riot"

**Note: This bill was later amended to remove all riot provisions except the increased penalties** Would increase the penalty for engaging in a "riot," from a Class 1 misdemeanor to a Class H felony, punishable by 25 months in prison. If the "riot" resulted in property damage of over $1,500, or serious injury, anyone deemed to have engaged in the "riot" (regardless of their role in the damage or injury) could be convicted of a Class G felony, punishable by 31 months in prison. The bill would not alter North Carolina's broad definition of "riot," which does not require any actual violence or destructive activity. Under the bill, peaceful protesters in a group of three or more who present an "imminent threat of disorderly and violent conduct" that "creates a clear and present danger" of property damage or injury could face felony convictions and lengthy prison sentences. Note: A later amendment eliminated the proposed increase in penalty for engaging in a "riot." It also eliminated the proposal to make it a Class G felony for engaging in a riot that resulted in property damage over $1,500 or serious bodily injury. Instead, it replaced that proposal by making it a Class G felony if during the course of a riot a person caused over $1,500 in property damage or a Class F felony if the person during the course of a riot caused serious bodily injury or brandished a dangerous weapon or substance. It also clarified that "mere presence alone without an overt act" is not sufficient to sustain a conviction of rioting. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted with improvements

Introduced 15 Mar 2021; Approved by Senate 12 May 2021; Approved by House 18 August 2021; Signed by Governor Cooper 2 September 2021

Issue(s): Riot

return to map
North Dakota

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

return to map
North Dakota

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

return to map
North Dakota

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.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

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

Issue(s): Trespass

return to map
North Dakota

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

return to map
North Dakota

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."

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

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

Issue(s): Riot

return to map
North Dakota

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

return to map
North Dakota

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.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Jan 2017; Approved by House 2 February 2017

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Ohio

SB 33: New penalties for protests near critical infrastructure

The law heightens penalties for protests near oil and gas pipelines and other infrastructure by expanding the definitions of "criminal trespass" and "criminal mischief." The law provides that entering and remaining on marked or fenced-off property that contains a "critical infrastructure facility" is criminal trespass and a first degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. Doing so with the purpose of "tampering with" the facility would constitute aggravated trespass, a third degree felony--punishable by up to ten years in prison and a $20,000 fine. Knowingly and "improperly tampering" with the facility would constitute "criminal mischief," likewise a third degree felony. "Critical infrastructure facility" is expansively defined to encompass oil, gas, electric, water, telecommunications, and railroad facilities among many others. The law also imposes fines on organizations found guilty of "complicity" in the trespass or mischief offenses, in the amount of ten times the maximum fine that can be imposed on an individual. Ohio law defines "complicity" to include soliciting, procuring, aiding, abetting, or conspiring with another to commit an offense. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 12 Feb 2019; Approved by Senate 1 May 2019; Approved by House 17 December 2020; Signed by Governor DeWine 11 January 2021

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure

return to map
Ohio

SB 267: New civil cause of action against protesters and supporters

Would make protesters and protest organizers civilly liable for damage and injury even if they did not personally cause it. Under the bill, someone whose property is damaged or who is injured as the result of a “riot” or “vandalism” offense could sue anyone who engaged in the offense. They could also sue “any person or organization who provided material support or resources with the intent that the material support or resources would be used to perpetuate” the offense. A civil suit under the bill could proceed regardless of whether the defendant was charged or convicted of committing “riot” or “vandalism,” and damages would include repairing the property or injury, as well as providing compensation for emotional distress, court costs, attorney’s fees, and “other reasonable expenses.” Ohio’s definition of “riot” requires only five people engaged in “disorderly conduct” with an unlawful purpose – to commit a misdemeanor, to impede a government function, or “hinder” the “orderly process” of administration or instruction at an educational institution. “Disorderly conduct” is likewise broadly defined as “recklessly caus[ing] inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another,” through means including “making unreasonable noise” or “hindering” movement of people on streets. As such, if the bill were enacted, participants in noisy or disruptive but nonviolent protests, as well as people and organizations that support them, could face expensive lawsuits. The bill also bars government officials from limiting law enforcement's authority to quell a "riot" or "vandalism," or to arrest or detain individuals involved in either offense.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 14 May 2024.

Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Police Response, Riot

return to map
Ohio

HB 109: Heightened penalties for blocking traffic and other conduct during protests, and new liability for organizations involved in protests

Would heighten potential penalties for protesters who block traffic, by providing that engaging in "disorderly conduct" by blocking a public street or highway is a 3rd degree felony (instead of a minor misdemeanor) if it occurs during a "riot", or during a protest that was not granted a permit or one for which the scope of the permit was exceeded. Existing law defines "disorderly conduct" broadly, as "recklessly caus[ing] inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm," through means including "making unreasonable noise" or "hindering" movement of people on streets. "Riot" is also broadly defined under existing law as participating with four or more people in "disorderly conduct" with an unlawful purpose – to commit a misdemeanor, impede a government function, or interfere with lawful activities at an educational institution. The bill creates a new offense of "harassment in a place of public accommodation," defined as recklessly "harassing" or "intimidating" another at a place of public accommodation while engaged in a "riot". The offense is a 1st degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. The bill creates a new offense for "riot vandalism," for "recklessly" causing physical harm to property that is owned or leased by a government entity, or that is a monument, tomb, or "similar structure." The new offense is a 5th degree felony, punishable by up to one year in prison and a $2,500 fine. The bill also provides that someone who causes any property damage or injury while committing "riot" is guilty of a 4th degree felony (instead of a 1st degree misdemeanor), punishable by a year and a half in prison and a $5,000 fine. The bill would introduce new potential felony penalties and civil liability for individuals and organizations involved in funding or organizing protests that are deemed "riots". Under the bill, an organization whose associates engage in, attempt, or conspire to engage in providing "material support" to another to "plan, prepare, carry out, or aid" a "riot," or to "organize[] persons" to engage in a "riot," would be committing "corrupt activity," which could trigger 2nd degree felony charges, punishable by up to eight years in prison and a $15,000 fine. The organization could also be liable for property damage that resulted and the cost of law enforcement involved in investigating and prosecuting the offense. These provisions could affect organizations that are even tangentially involved in protest activity. Finally, the bill would allow police to sue individuals for injury or property loss resulting from the individual's role in an "unlawful assembly" or "riot". Organizations that provide "material support" to the individuals would also be civilly liable, for treble damages. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 16 Feb 2021; Approved by House 16 February 2022

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

return to map
Ohio

HB 22: New penalties for protesters who "taunt" police

Would newly criminalize "taunting" an on-duty law enforcement officer with "reckless disregard" as to whether the taunting diverts the officer's attention. The bill does not define "taunt," and as such the offense could cover protected speech and chanting by protesters that even momentarily distracts law enforcement. Penalties for the offense, which the bill would include under the crime of "obstructing justice," range from 90 days in jail and a $750 fine, to more serious felony penalties. Note: Later amendments removed the "taunting" provision from the bill.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 3 Feb 2021; Approved by House 25 June 2021

return to map
Ohio

SB 41: Charging protesters for the cost of property damage and the cost of law enforcement to respond to a protest

Would require that anyone convicted of "riot" or "aggravated riot" pay restitution for any property damage in addition to other penalties imposed. Additionally, the bill would allow law enforcement and other public agencies to seek reimbursement from a protester for all costs the agency incurred in responding to a "potential serious threat to public safety"defined to include a "validated report" report that two or more people are committing vandalism, "criminal mischief," or "aggravated riot." The agency could seek court-ordered reimbursement from anyone convicted of committing any misdemeanor or felony offense "in connection with" a "potential serious threat to public safety." In other words, the bill would allow a police department to seek compensation from a protester who was convicted of a simple misdemeanor, for the time spent by officers in responding to a report of "aggravated riot," even if no "aggravated riot" occurred. The bill would also create a new felony offense for vandalism on government property. Under the bill, intentionally "defacing, painting" or otherwise "marking upon" property owned, leased, or controlled by the government, even if only in a temporary manner, is a fifth degree felony, punishable by up to one year in prison and a $2,500 fine. Finally, the bill makes planning or "aid[ing] in planning" vandalism of government property a new "conspiracy offense," a first degree misdemeanor punishable by six months in jail and $1,000 in fines.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 2 Feb 2021.

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Security Costs, Riot

return to map
Ohio

SB 16: New penalties for protesters who block traffic, and for protest funders and organizers

Would create new penalties for protests that took place on or spilled onto streets, sidewalks, or any other "public passage." The bill provides that it is a first degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months year in jail and a $1,000 fine, to "impede" or render any public passage "impassable without unreasonable inconvenience" after being asked by an authority to stop. If the offense occurs as part of a "riot," it is a fifth degree felony, punishable by one year in prison and a $2,500 fine. Ohio law defines "riot" to include engaging in "disorderly conduct" with four or more persons with the purpose of committing a misdemeanor, or to "hinder, impede, or obstruct a function of government" a definition broad enough to cover peaceful protests. The bill would also introduce new potential felony penalties and civil liability for individuals and organizations involved in funding or organizing protests that are deemed "riots." Under the bill, an organization whose associates engage in, attempt, or conspire to engage in providing "material support" to another to "plan, prepare, carry out, or aid" a "riot," or to "organize[] persons" to engage in a "riot," would be committing "corrupt activity," which could trigger second class felony charges, punishable by up to eight years in prison and a $15,000 fine. The organization could also be liable for property damage that resulted and the cost of law enforcement involved in investigating and prosecuting the offense. These provisions could affect organizations that are even tangentially involved in protest activity, as "material support" could cover donor funding to advocacy groups that engage in protests, or trainings for activists about peaceful protest tactics. Note: The version of the bill that passed the Senate removed the "material support" provisions and changed the obstruction of a public passage provision to require that the obstruction prevents an emergency vehicle from accessing a street and those obstructing the public passage have received and refused to obey a request to move.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 26 Jan 2021; Approved by Senate 2 June 2021

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

return to map
Ohio

HB 784: Excusing use of deadly force against protesters and heightening penalties for road-blocking protests

The bill would create a new civil and criminal defense for anyone who uses force, including deadly force, to escape from a "riot." The bill would excuse a person who "reasonably believes" they are in danger of imminent injury from a riot, from taking "any steps necessary to flee," and would justify their "using or threatening to use reasonable force, including deadly force, to escape." The provision could encourage the use of violence against protesters. The bill would also create steep new penalties for interfering with or blocking traffic during an unpermitted protest. "Hindering or preventing movement" of persons on roads (a minor misdemeanor under current law) would become a third degree felony, punishable by up to 3 years in prison and $10,000, if it occurred during a protest that had not received a permit, or a protest that exceeded its issued permit. The bill would also enable law enforcement officers to sue protesters and any organizational supporters of protests if the officers suffered injury or property damage as a result of a riot. Ohio law defines "riot" to include engaging in "disorderly conduct" (including "recklessly caus[ing] inconvenience [or] annoyance") with four or more persons "to hinder, impede, or obstruct a function of government" - definition broad enough to cover peaceful protests.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Nov 2020.

Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Driver Immunity, Riot, Traffic Interference, Stand Your Ground

return to map
Ohio

HB 362: New penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

Would broadly prohibit the wearing of masks or other disguises in certain circumstances during protests. Like HB 423, introduced in the 2017-2018 session, the bill criminalizes the wearing of a mask or disguise to intentionally "obstruct the execution of the law," "to intimidate, hinder, or interrupt" a person who is performing a legal duty, or to prevent a person from exercising rights granted to them by the Constitution or laws of Ohio (such as the right to assemble). Under the bill, commission of "masked intimidation" as defined by any of the above would be a first degree misdemeanor, subject to up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. According to its sponsors, the bill originated out of concerns about violent confrontations caused by masked protesters. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 8 Oct 2019.

Issue(s): Face Covering

return to map
Ohio

SB 250: New penalties for protests near "critical infrastructure"

Would heighten the penalties for protests near oil and gas pipelines and other infrastructure by expanding the definitions of "criminal trespass" and "criminal mischief." Entering and remaining on marked or fenced-off property that contains a "critical infrastructure facility" would be criminal trespass under the bill and could be charged as a first degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. Doing so with the purpose of tampering with or harming the facility would constitute aggravated trespass, a third degree felony; knowingly tampering with the facility would constitute "criminal mischief" and a first degree felony--punishable by up to ten years in prison and a $20,000 fine. "Critical infrastructure facility" is expansively defined to encompass oil, gas, electric, water, telecommunications, and railroad facilities among many others. The bill also imposes fines on organizations found to be complicit in the trespass or mischief offenses, and imposes civil liability for damage caused by trespass on a critical infrastructure facility.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 24 Jan 2018; Approved by Senate 6 December 2018

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

return to map
Oklahoma

HB 1674: Penalties for protesters who block traffic, immunity for drivers who hit protesters, and liability for organizations that work with protesters

**Note: Portions of HB1674 were preliminarily enjoined by a federal district judge on October 27, 2021, temporarily blocking enforcement of the law's 1) penalties for protesters who obstruct traffic, and 2) penalties for organizations that "conspire" with someone who is convicted of certain protest-related offenses.** Creates new penalties for protesters who obstruct traffic while participating in a "riot," and protects drivers who "unintentionally" hit them. Under the law, a person who participated in a "riot" and "obstructed" the "normal use" of a public street or highway, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in prison, a $5,000 fine, and restitution for any property damage that occurs. The law defines "obstruct" to include rendering the street or highway "unreasonably inconvenient or hazardous" for cars' passage, including by "standing" on the street or highway. "Riot" is broadly defined under existing Oklahoma law, to include a group of three or more people who make "any threat to use force." The new law also shields from liability a driver who injures or kills someone while "fleeing from a riot," as long as they did so "unintentionally," were "exercising due care," and held a "reasonable belief" that they needed to flee to protect themselves. Under the law, such a driver cannot be held civilly or criminally liable for the injuries or death they caused. Finally, the law provides that an organization found to have "conspired" with individuals who are found guilty of certain offenses--including "unlawful assembly," "riot," "incitement to riot," refusing to aid in the arrest of a "rioter," and remaining at the scene of a "riot" after being ordered to disperse--may be fined ten times the maximum amount of fine authorized for the individual's offense.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 2 Feb 2021; Approved by House 10 March 2021; Approved by Senate 14 April 2021; Signed by Governor Stitt 21 April 2021

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

return to map
Oklahoma

HB 2095: Racketeering penalties for those involved in "unlawful assemblies"

Adds "unlawful assemblies" to the offenses that can be prosecuted as "racketeering activity" under Oklahoma's RICO statute. As a result, an organization or individual found to have "attempted" or "conspired" with individuals to engage in or encourage a protest that is deemed an "unlawful assembly" can be prosecuted under RICO and subject to felony penalties. Oklahoma law broadly defines "unlawful assembly" to include a group of three or more people who gather without lawful authority in a manner "as is adapted to disturb the public peace." (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 1 Feb 2021; Approved by House 8 March 2021; Approved by Senate 21 April 2021; Signed by Governor Stitt 28 April 2021

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders

return to map
Oklahoma

HB 1123: New penalties for protests near critical infrastructure

Targets protests around certain public facilities by creating a new criminal offense for trespass onto property containing "critical infrastructure." The law's extensive list of "critical infrastructure" facilities ranges from a petroleum refinery to a telephone pole. Willfully entering onto property containing critical infrastructure without permission is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to $1,000 or six month in jail, or both. Evidence of intent to damage or otherwise harm the operations of the infrastructure facility would make the offence a felony, punishable by at least $10,000 (with no maximum provided) or imprisonment for one year, or both; actual damage or vandalizing of the facility is punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $100,000 fine. Organizations found to have "conspired" with perpetrators are liable for up to $1,000,000. The sponsor of the law told a House of Representatives committee that it was prompted by the Dakota Access Pipeline protests in North Dakota. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 6 Feb 2017; Signed into law 3 May 2017

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

return to map
Oklahoma

HB 2128: Heightened penalties for protesters who trespass onto private property

Increases the potential penalties levied on individuals who protest on private property without permission. The law allows prosecutors to hold anyone arrested for or convicted of trespass liable for any damages to personal or real property caused while trespassing. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 6 Feb 2017; Governor Fallin signed into law 15 May 2017

Issue(s): Trespass

return to map
Oklahoma

SB 560: Immunity for drivers who hit protesters

Would provide civil and criminal immunity to a driver of a vehicle if they injure or kill someone with their vehicle if they are "surrounded by a person or persons engaged in unlawful activity who has blocked the road" and the driver is engaging in "a reasonable effort to escape from unlawful activity." Under this bill, a driver could potentially be immunized from all liability if they hit and kill a peaceful protester who is obstructing a road. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 2 Feb 2021; Passed Senate 8 March 2021

Issue(s): Driver Immunity

return to map
Oklahoma

SB 15: Mandatory restitution for property damage during unlawful assembly or riot

Would require courts to order individuals convicted of participation in a riot, incitement to riot, or participation in an unlawful assembly to pay restitution for any property damage or loss caused by the offense. Under the bill's provisions, individuals could be ordered to pay for damage that they did not personally cause, if a gathering they were part of was declared unlawful or a riot. Oklahoma law also broadly defines "riot" and "unlawful assembly," for instance giving broad discretion to authorities to label as an "unlawful assembly" a group of four or more people who gather without a permit "in such a manner as is adapted to disturb the public peace."

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 1 Feb 2021.

Issue(s): Riot

return to map
Oklahoma

HB 1561: Steep penalties for obstructing traffic, and elimination of liability for drivers who hit protesters

Would create new felony penalties for protests that take place on or spill onto streets and highways. Under the bill, a person who "willfully obstructed" the "normal use" of a public street or highway is guilty of a felony, punishable by up to 2 years in prison. The bill defines "obstruct" to include rendering passage on the street or highway "unreasonably inconvenient or hazardous." The bill also shields from liability a driver who injures or kills someone while "fleeing from a riot," as long as they did so "unintentionally" and held a "reasonable belief" that they needed to flee to protect themselves. Such a driver cannot be held civilly or criminally liable. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 1 Feb 2021.

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Traffic Interference

return to map
Oklahoma

HB 1565: Mandatory dismissal of state employees convicted of protest offenses

The bill requires that employees of the state who are convicted of "incitement to riot" or "unlawful assembly" must be terminated from their job, and barred from future employment with any government entity. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 1 Feb 2021.

Issue(s): Riot

return to map
Oklahoma

HB 1578: New penalties for vandalism and "annoying" or "alarming" conduct during a "riot"

Would create a new felony offense for participating in a "riot" and "vandalizing" or "defacing" any structure owned by a government entity. The offense is punishable by at least 2 and up to 10 years in prison. The bill does not define "vandalize" or "deface." The bill also creates a new misdemeanor offense for intentionally causing "annoyance" or "alarm" at a public accommodation, during a "riot," through "tumultuous" or "threatening" behavior or "abusive language." The offense is punishable by a minimum of one year in jail. "Riot" is broadly defined under Oklahoma law, to include a group of three or more people who make "any threat to use force." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 1 Feb 2021.

Issue(s): Riot

return to map
Oklahoma

HB 1822: Restrictions on protests near the State Capitol

Would introduce new restrictions on "all demonstrations or events" in and around the buildings and grounds that make up Oklahoma's State Capitol Park complex, including the Capitol building itself. Within that zone, the bill prohibits "assembling" or "congregating" in a way that "obstruct[s]" sidewalks, walkways, or entrances or exits to buildings. This prohibition could be implemented to effectively bar protests that take place on or spill onto sidewalks or take place near any building entrances. The bill also prohibits the placement of tents or sleeping materials for the purpose remaining overnight. This would bar protesters from holding vigils and other 24-hour protests on Capitol grounds. The bill also prohibits affixing signs to any tree or structure; this would presumably include even protest signage that is affixed temporarily. Violation of the bill's prohibitions would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $500 fine. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 1 Feb 2021; Approved by House 8 March 2021

Issue(s): Traffic Interference, Camping

return to map
Oklahoma

HB 2094: Allowing lawsuits against the state for failure to aggressively respond to protests

Would waive the state's immunity from civil lawsuits for damage caused by protests in certain cases. Under the bill, the state and its subdivisions would be liable to claims for damages if they failed to take "reasonable action" to mitigate damage or injury resulting from a "riot" or "civil disobedience," or made a decision or established a policy "to allow" civil disobedience and riots. If enacted, the bill could encourage state and local governments to adopt overly aggressive law enforcement responses to protests and acts of civil disobedience, in order to avoid lawsuits. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 21 Jan 2021.

Issue(s): Riot, State Liability

return to map
Oklahoma

HB 2096: Steep penalties for vandalism of public property during a protest

Would create a new offense that could cover nondestructive acts of expression during protests. The bill provides that anyone who participated in a "riot" and willfully "vandalized or defaced" a government-owned structure or building, is guilty of a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. "Riot" is broadly defined under Oklahoma law, to include a group of three or more people who make "any threat to use force." "Vandalize" and "deface" are not defined, and could cover chalk drawings or artwork posted with temporary adhesive. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 21 Jan 2021.

Issue(s): Riot

return to map
Oklahoma

HB 2215: Immunity for drivers who hit protesters and an expanded definition of "incitement to riot"

Would shield a driver who unintentionally injured or killed someone while "fleeing from a riot" if the driver had the "reasonable belief" that fleeing was necessary to avoid injury. If enacted, the bill would allow a driver to evade civil damages and criminal penalties for hitting and even killing a protester, as long as the injury or death was "unintended" and they had a "reasonable" fear of injury. The bill also substantially broadens the definition of "incitement to riot," a felony offense. Under the bill, a person who intends to aid or abet a "riot" and who in any way "urges" another to "interfere" with a police officer; "obstruct" the entrance to a private business; or "obstruct" any street or highway would be guilty of "incitement to riot" - felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. "Riot" is broadly defined under Oklahoma law, to include a group of three or more people who make "any threat to use force." The terms "interfere" and "obstruct" are not defined, and as such the offense could include showing support for a peacefully protest that even temporarily pauses traffic. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 21 Jan 2021.

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Riot, Traffic Interference

return to map
Oklahoma

HB 2464: Heightened penalties for protests that block traffic

Would create a new felony offense for anyone who participates in a "riot" and intentionally "obstructs" traffic. The bill does not define "obstruct," nor does it limit the locations where such obstruction might take place. According to the bill, an individual in a protest that is deemed a "riot" who pauses traffic on a private road or in a public parking lot could be guilty of a felony and face up to 5 years in prison. "Riot" is broadly defined under Oklahoma law, to include a group of three or more people who make "any threat to use force." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 21 Jan 2021.

Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference

return to map
Oklahoma

SB 806: New penalties for protests that block traffic and organizations that support unlawful protests

Would newly add "riot" and "unlawful assembly" to the underlying crimes that can be prosecuted for "racketeering activity" under Oklahoma's RICO statute. "Racketeering" includes attempt, conspiracy, and solicitation. As such, under the bill, an organization or individual found to have "conspired" with others to engage in a protest that is deemed a "riot" or "unlawful assembly" could be prosecuted under RICO. Violations under the RICO statute are a felony, punishable by at least 10 years in prison and a steep fine. This provision would likely discourage non-profit organizations among others from engaging with or supporting protest organizers or participants, out of concern that they could be caught up in a RICO prosecution. The bill would also make it a misdemeanor to "block" or "restrict" traffic on any public highway or street "as a result of a riot" or "unlawful assembly." The offense would be punishable by up to one year in jail, a $500 fine, at least 40 hours of community service, and restitution for any property damage. The bill would also require that anyone convicted of participation in a "riot," "rout," or "unlawful assembly" pay restitution for any property damage resulting from the offense, and perform at least 40 hours of community service. The new penalties would apply to individuals who remained at the scene after being lawfully warned to disperse, and those who continued to participate when a lawful assembly became a "riot." "Riot" is broadly defined under Oklahoma law, to include a group of three or more people who make "any threat to use force;" "unlawful assembly" is likewise broadly defined, and includes a group of three or more who gather without lawful authority in a manner "as is adapted to disturb the public peace."

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 21 Jan 2021; Approved by Senate 8 March 2021

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

return to map
Oklahoma

SB 592: Steep fee for protesting at the state capitol

Would require any group of 100 or more people who engage in a protest at the Oklahoma capitol building to post a $50,000 bond to the Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority "to offset the cost of additional security, cleanup and repairs." The bill follows the walkout and multi-day protest by thousands of Oklahoma's teachers at the capitol in April 2018.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 18 Jan 2019.

Issue(s): Security Costs

return to map
Oregon

HB 3329: New penalties for protesters who block traffic or are convicted of "riot," including limits on public benefits

Would create a new felony offense that could cover peaceful protesters who block traffic. Under the bill, obstructing vehicles or pedestrians "on a public way" would be a Class C felony, punishable by 5 years in prison and $125,000, if committed during a "violent or disorderly assembly." The bill defines "violent or disorderly assembly" as a group of two or more people who cause property damage or injury. The definition would seem to cover a large demonstration where some participants commit even minor property damage. The bill also creates a new Class C felony offense for causing "alarm" by "engaging in threatening or intimidating conduct" at a place of public accommodation. The bill limits access to public benefits and employment for protesters, providing that a person is disqualified from receiving public assistance or being employed by the state if the person is convicted of "riot" or any crime that has as an element the fact that it occurred during a "violent or disorderly assembly." The bill also prohibits the immediate release of a person arrested for "riot" or for a crime occurring during a "violent or disorderly assembly," until the person appears in court. Finally, the bill waives the immunity of public bodies, officers, employees and agents for a civil claim arising out of a "riot," if the entity or individual was "grossly negligent" in protecting persons or property. If enacted, such provisions could encourage local governments and law enforcement agencies to adopt overly aggressive responses to protests, to avoid costly lawsuits. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 2 Mar 2021.

Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference, State Liability, Limit on Public Benefits

return to map
Oregon

HB 4126: Harsh penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

Would make it a Class B felony to "partially or fully conceal[]" one's face while engaged in a riot, in order to "facilitate commission" of the riot. A Class B felony in Oregon is punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The bill would also direct courts to consider an individual's concealment of their face an aggravating factor during sentencing. Under Oregon law, a person can be convicted of rioting if "while participating with five or more other persons the person engages in tumultuous and violent conduct and thereby intentionally or recklessly creates a grave risk of causing public alarm." Given the vagueness of the underlying riot definition, extreme penalties such as those envisioned in the bill could have a chilling effect on nonviolent protesters who want to remain anonymous or use a mask to make a political or social statement. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 28 Jan 2020.

Issue(s): Face Covering, Riot

return to map
Oregon

SB 540: Mandatory expulsion for college students convicted of rioting

Would require that public universities and community colleges expel a student who is convicted of participating in a riot. The bill expired with the end of the 2017 legislative session. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Jan 2017.

Issue(s): Campus Protests, Riot

return to map
Oregon

HB 2772: Criminalizing Certain Protests as Domestic Terrorism

As introduced, the bill would have created a sweeping new crime of "domestic terrorism" that would include if a person intentionally attempted to cause "disruption of daily life" that "severely affects the population, infrastructure, environment, or government functioning of this state." Under this definition, a peaceful protest that blocked traffic in a major commercial district could be defined as domestic terrorism, a Class B felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. Lawmakers substantially amended the bill prior to its enactment, however rights groups argue that it could still cover certain acts of civil disobedience. Under the enacted law, “domestic terrorism” in the first degree is a Class B felony and includes intentionally destroying or substantially damaging “critical infrastructure,” with the intent to disrupt the services provided by critical infrastructure. Attempting to destroy or substantially damage critical infrastructure is a Class C felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a fine of $125,000. “Critical infrastructure” is broadly defined to include pipelines and roads.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted with improvements

Introduced 9 Jan 2023; Approved by House 8 June 2023; Approved by Senate 23 June 2023; Signed by Governor Kotek 4 August 2023

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Terrorism, Traffic Interference

return to map
Pennsylvania

HB 2351: Barring financial aid for student protesters who commit certain crimes

Would bar state financial aid to students convicted of certain protest-related offenses. The bill requires that the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency deny all forms of financial assistance to any student who is convicted of offenses including trespass at an educational facility, government building, religious facility, or the grounds “adjacent to and owned or occupied by” such an entity. The bill’s sponsors cited protesters for Palestinian rights who occupied buildings on college and university campuses as motivation for the bill.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 14 Jun 2024.

Issue(s): Campus Protests, Trespass, Limit on Public Benefits

return to map
Pennsylvania

HB 2352: New criminal penalties for protesters in or near academic and government buildings

Would create a new felony offense, “institutional trespass,” that could cover individuals who engage in disruptive protests in certain public or private locations. Under the bill, it is unlawful to enter an educational facility, government building, religious facility, or the grounds “adjacent to and owned or occupied by” such an entity, with a prohibited purpose, including “disrupting the work or operation of the occupant.” The offense is a third degree felony, punishable by up to seven years in prison and $15,000. The bill’s sponsors cited protesters for Palestinian rights who occupied buildings on college and university campuses as motivation for the bill.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 10 Jun 2024.

Issue(s): Campus Protests, Trespass

return to map
Pennsylvania

SB 887: New penalties for protests near "critical infrastructure"

Would heighten potential penalties for protests near oil and gas pipelines and other critical infrastructure by creating a new offense of "critical infrastructure facility trespass." According to the bill, entering or merely attempting to enter property containing a critical infrastructure facility, without permission of the property owner, would be a third degree felony punishable by up to one year in prison; remaining at the facility after being ordered to leave would be a second degree felony, likewise punishable by up to one year in prison. Entering a critical infrastructure facility with the intent to "damage, destroy, vandalize, deface, tamper with equipment or impede or inhibit operations of the facility," would be a second degree felony punishable by imprisonment for up to one year. It would also be a second degree felony, subject to one year's imprisonment, to "conspire[] with another person to commit" any of the above offences. An individual who commits any of the offenses a second time would face penalties of the next felony degree. The law newly defines "critical infrastructure facility" under Pennsylvania law to include a broad range of oil, gas, electric, water, telecommunications, and railroad facilities, such as gas and oil pipelines "buried or above ground." The definition of "critical infrastructure facility" applies to facilities "constructed or under construction," and includes "equipment and machinery, regardless of whether stored on location or at a storage yard, to the extent that it is used to construct a critical infrastructure facility." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 7 Oct 2019.

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

return to map
Pennsylvania

SB 323: Charging protesters for the costs of responding to a protest

Would make individual protesters potentially liable for "public safety response costs" incurred by the state or a political subdivision during a protest or demonstration. Like SB 176, introduced in the 2017-2018 session, the bill allows local authorities to seek restitution from protesters convicted of a misdemeanor or felony in the course of a protest or demonstration, in order to pay for the costs of responding to the event. Such costs could include outlays for police, fire department, and medical services, as well as "related legal, administrative, and court expenses." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 22 Feb 2019.

Issue(s): Security Costs

return to map
Pennsylvania

SB 754: Charging protesters for the costs of responding to a protest

Would make individual protesters potentially liable for "public safety response costs" incurred by the state or "political subdivision" during a protest or rally. The bill allows local authorities to seek restitution from protesters convicted of a misdemeanor or felony in the course of a protest or demonstration, in order to pay for the costs of responding to the event. Such costs could include overtime for police officers and emergency medical services, as well as "related legal, administrative, and court expenses." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 16 Aug 2017.

Issue(s): Security Costs

return to map
Pennsylvania

SB 652: Heightened penalties for protests near critical infrastructure

Would heighten potential penalties for protests around critical infrastructure such as gas and oil pipelines by providing for the crime of "criminal trespass" onto a critical infrastructure facility. Under the bill, it is a felony to enter a critical infrastructure facility "with the intent to willfully damage, destroy, vandalize, deface, tamper with equipment or impede or inhibit the operations of the facility." The bill broadly defines "critical infrastructure facility" to include natural gas facilities and pipelines, "whether constructed or under construction," as well as "equipment and machinery, regardless of location, to the extent that it is used to construct, maintain, or operate a critical infrastructure facility." Other facilities considered critical infrastructure include cell phone towers, telephone poles, and railroad tracks that are fenced off or posted as no-entry areas. Under the bill, entering such an area with the intent to cause damage or disruption is a second-degree felony. An individual who "conspires" to do so commits a first-degree felony. The bill was substantially amended on 25 September 2018, including to significantly expand the definition of "critical infrastructure facility." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 25 Apr 2017; Approved by Senate 23 May 2018

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass

return to map
Rhode Island

SB 404: Mandatory penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would create mandatory penalties for knowingly or recklessly interfering with traffic on a highway. Under the bill, a first offense is a felony requiring a mandatory sentence of at least one year, with no option for parole until after 60 days, and a maximum of 3 years. A second offence is a felony with a mandatory minimum sentence of at least 3 years, with no option for parole until after one year, and a maximum of 5 years. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 25 Feb 2021.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Rhode Island

HB 5001: New penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would introduce new felony penalties for protesters who block highway traffic. The bill creates a new unlawful "interference with traffic" offense for anyone who "stands, sits, kneels, or otherwise loiters" on a highway, causing "obstruction, distraction, or delay" of any motorist. The offense is a felony, punishable by a minimum of one and up to 3 years in prison. A second conviction for the offense is punishable by at least 3 and up to 5 years, and a third conviction is punishable by at least 5 and up to 10 years. If the interference causes the "obstruction, distraction, or delay" of an emergency vehicle, and results in death, anyone convicted of participating in the interference will be sentenced to at least 5 and up to 30 years in prison. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 8 Jan 2021.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Rhode Island

H 7543: New Penalties for Protesters Who Conceal Their Identity

Would make it unlawful for a person to wear protective equipment, such as a "gas mask", "kneepads", "riot helmets", "face visors", or "vests" during a demonstration, rally, or parade. It also bans wearing "a mask or disguise with the specific intent to intimidate or threaten another person". A violation of the Act would be punishable by up to one year in jail and/or a $1000 fine. The broad language in the Act could be used to ban a range of masks and equipment that could be part of the expressive component of a demonstration. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 12 Feb 2020.

Issue(s): Face Covering

return to map
Rhode Island

HB 5690: Eliminating driver liability for hitting protesters

Would eliminate civil liability for the driver of an automobile who hits or otherwise injures a person participating in a protest or demonstration, if the protest or demonstration was blocking traffic and the driver was exercising "due care." Civil liability remains if the driver's actions were intentional. The bill expired with the end of the 2017 legislative session. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 1 Mar 2017.

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Traffic Interference

return to map
South Carolina

HB 3491: New penalties for protesters and protections for individuals who commit violence against them

Would create new penalties for offenses that could encompass conduct by peaceful protesters. The bill newly criminalizes the blocking of a street, sidewalk, or "any other place used for the passage of persons, vehicles or conveyances." Accordingly, protesters who obstruct or make it "unreasonably inconvenient" to use a street or sidewalk could face up to three years in jail. The bill also targets protest encampments on the grounds outside government buildings, by broadly defining "camping," and prohibiting camping on state property that is not designated for camping. As such, protesters who use any "piece of furniture" or erect tarps or other shelters on state property could be charged with a felony, if they continue to do so 24 hours after receiving a warning. The bill amends South Carolina's law on "rioting" to require that anyone convicted of rioting - including "by being personally present [at], or by instigating, promoting, or aiding" a riot - be ordered to pay restitution "for any property damage or loss incurred as a result." Protesters could thus be liable for property damage that they did not cause, but were "present" for. Finally, the bill would create new criminal and civil immunity for a person who uses deadly force or points a firearm when "confronted by a mob," where "mob" is broadly defined. The provision may encourage the use of force and the incidence of violent confrontations in the context of protests.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 12 Jan 2021.

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Riot, Traffic Interference, Camping, Stand Your Ground

return to map
South Carolina

HB 5045: New penalties for non-student protesters on school and college campuses

Would make it a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $2,000 fine, for a person who is not a student to "willfully interfere with, disrupt, or disturb the normal operations of a school or college" by entering the grounds of an educational institution without permission; being "loud or boisterous" after being instructed not to be; refusing to vacate a building, facility, or grounds of a public or private education facility after being directed to do so; engaging in "sitting, kneeling, lying down, or inclining" so as to obstruct an ingress after being told not to; or disrupting teaching or engaging in conduct that disturbs the peace at an educational institution or grounds adjacent to it. The bill would not only cover members of the public, but also faculty, staff, and affiliates of the educational institution who are not students. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 29 Jan 2020.

Issue(s): Campus Protests

return to map
South Carolina

SB 33: Mandatory sanctions for campus protesters

Would create mandatory disciplinary sanctions that could be applied to peaceful protesters on college and university campuses. The bill requires public universities and community colleges to adopt a policy prohibiting and subjecting to sanction any "[p]rotests and demonstrations that materially and substantially infringe upon the rights of others to engage in or listen to expressive activity" on campus. Additionally, the bill requires administrators to suspend for at least one year or expel any student who is twice "found responsible for infringing on the expressive rights of others," such as through a protest of a campus speaker. The bill also waives South Carolina's immunity from federal lawsuits related to the law, such that a speaker or student group who feels the law is insufficiently enforced could sue the state and/or university in federal or state court. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 8 Jan 2019.

Issue(s): Campus Protests, State Liability

return to map
South Dakota

SB 151: New penalties for protests near pipelines and other infrastructure

Heightens potential penalties for protests near oil and gas pipelines and other infrastructure. Under the law, knowingly trespassing on property containing a critical infrastructure facility is a misdemeanor punishable by a year in prison and a $2,000 fine. Knowingly tampering with any property and as a direct result interfering, inhibiting, or impeding the maintenance or construction of a critical infrastructure facility is a felony punishable by two years in prison and/or a $4,000 fine. A person or organization found to be a "conspirator" in any of the above offenses faces a range of criminal fines. Any owner, lessee, or operator of any critical infrastructure facility where a crime is committed under one of the above provisions is designated a "victim" under South Dakota law, which entitles them to restitution and other victims' rights. As such, a company that owns a critical infrastructure facility can seek restitution from an individual protester convicted of any of the above provisions, as well as from any person or entity found to be a "conspirator." (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 4 Feb 2020; Approved by Senate 27 February 2020; Approved by House 9 March 2020; Signed by Governor March 18 2020

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

return to map
South Dakota

HB 1117: New criminal and civil liability for "incitement to riot"

Revises the state's laws on rioting and replaces a "riot-boosting" law that was passed in 2019 but later blocked by a federal court as unconstitutional. The law revises the definition of "riot" under South Dakota law to be "any intentional use of force or violence by three or more persons, acting together and without authority of law, to cause any injury to any person or any damage to property." Under the law, "incitement to riot" is a new felony offense, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and $10,000 in fines, and defined as conduct that "urges" three or more people to use force or violence to cause personal injury or property damage, if the force or violence is "imminent" and the urging is likely to "incite or produce" the force or violence. The law defines "urging" to include "instigating, inciting, or directing," but excludes "oral or written advocacy of ideas or expression of belief that does not urge" imminent force or violence. Under the law, individuals may additionally be civilly liable for riot and incitement to riot, enabling lawsuits against protesters by the state, counties, or municipalities. Both 2019's "riot-boosting" law and HB 1117 appear to target protests against construction of the Keystone XL and other pipelines.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 29 Jan 2020; Approved by House 18 February 2020; Approved by Senate 5 March 2020; Signed by Governor Noem 23 March 2020

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

return to map
South Dakota

SB 189: Expanded civil liability for protesters and protest funders

**Note: According to an October 24, 2019 settlement agreement that resulted from a constitutional challenge to SB189, the state will not enforce many of the provisions of the law that could be applied to peaceful protesters and organizations that support them.** SB189 created new civil liability for "riot boosters." South Dakota criminal law defines "riot" broadly such that it can cover some forms of peaceful protest; as originally enacted, SB189 created civil liability for a person or organization that "does not personally participate in any riot but directs, advises, encourages, or solicits other persons participating in the riot to acts of force or violence." It was unclear what might have constituted "advice" or "encouragement" to carry out an act of force, such that an individual who shouted encouragement on the sidelines of a disruptive protest, or organizations that provided advice about conducting a peaceful but disruptive protest, might have been implicated. Following the October 24, 2019 settlement, the state will not enforce this provision. Nonetheless, enforceable provisions of the law still establish civil liability for any person or organization that is advised or encouraged by another, and that "makes any threat to use force or violence, if accompanied by immediate power of execution" in a group of three or more persons. The state or a third party may sue the person or organization for extensive civil damages, including punitive damages. Further, enforceable provisions of the law provide that a person or organization is liable for "riot boosting" if they engage in it personally "or through any employee, agent, or subsidiary." Accordingly, individuals, organizations, and funders may still be held civilly liable for substantial amounts of money for any involvement in a disruptive protest. Damages recovered by the state shall, according to the law, be deposited in a "riot boosting recovery fund," which may be used to pay for the state's response to disruptive protests. The law was introduced in response to pipeline protests in other states and ahead of construction of the Keystone XL pipeline in South Dakota. 

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 4 Mar 2019; Approved by Senate 7 March 2019; Approved by House 7 March 2019; Signed by Governor Noem 27 March 2019

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

return to map
South Dakota

SB 176: Expanding governor's power to restrict certain protests

Expands the governor's authority to curtail protest activities on public lands and restricts protests that interfere with highway traffic. The law enables the governor and sheriff to prohibit gatherings of 20 or more people on public land, if the gathering might damage the land or interfere with the renter's use of the land. The law enables South Dakota's Department of Transportation to prohibit or otherwise restrict an individual or vehicle from stopping, standing, parking, or being present on any highway if it interferes with traffic. The law also expands the crime of trespass, providing that an individual who defies a posted order not to enter a zone where assembling has been prohibited would be guilty of criminal trespass. Obstructing traffic or committing criminal trespass are classified as Class 1 misdemeanors, punishable by one year in jail or a $2,000 fine, or both. The law was proposed by Governor Daugaard to address potential pipeline protests. 

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 3 Mar 2017; Signed by Governor Daugaard 14 March 2017

Issue(s): Traffic Interference, Trespass

return to map
South Dakota

HB 1288: New Powers to Suspend State Agency Rules during Protests

Would add "protests" and "disorderly conduct" to a list of disasters that could allow the Governor to suspend the rules of a state agency. Under the bill, the Governor could suspend the rules of any state agency if there is an emergency beyond local government capacity and the provisions of the rule would in "any way prevent, hinder, or delay necessary action" in managing protests or disorderly conduct. In South Dakota, "disorderly conduct" includes "making unreasonable noise" or obstructing vehicular or pedestrian traffic. This change would make it easier for the Governor to suspend state agency rules in response to protests. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 6 Feb 2020.

Issue(s): State of Emergency, Traffic Interference

return to map
Tennessee

SB 2570 / HB 2031: Heightened penalties for protesters who block streets and highways

Significantly increases the penalty for knowingly or recklessly obstructing a street, highway, “or other place used for the passage of vehicles or conveyances.” Instead of a Class A misdemeanor, as provided by prior law, the offense is now a Class D felony punishable by at least 2 and up to 12 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. As written, the law's felony offense can cover protesters who block a street or make passage "unreasonably inconvenient" even if there are no cars on it. The felony offense can also seemingly apply to protesters who block a driveway or alley, even temporarily. The law also creates a new civil cause of action, such that anyone who knowingly or recklessly blocks a street can additionally be sued for civil damages.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 23 Jan 2024; Approved by Senate 23 April 2024; Approved by House 23 April 2024; Signed by Governor Lee 9 May 2024

Issue(s): Civil Liability, Traffic Interference

return to map
Tennessee

SB 451 / HB 881: Mandatory penalties for expanded aggravated riot offense

Expands the definition of "aggravated riot" and creates new mandatory minimum penalties for that offense. To be convicted of "riot" under Tennessee law, a person only needs to knowingly gather with two or more people whose tumultuous and violent conduct creates "grave danger of substantial damage to property or serious bodily injury to persons or substantially obstructs law enforcement or other governmental function." For instance, one could be held guilty of riot for merely joining a large protest in which there is isolated pushing, even if no one is injured. Under preexisting law, a person could be held liable for aggravated riot if they participated in a riot where someone was injured or substantial property damage occurred, even if the person did not commit any violence nor intended violence to occur. Under the law, a person may also be guilty of aggravated riot if they participated in a riot and either participated in exchange for compensation or "traveled from outside the state with the intent to commit a criminal offense." A "criminal offense" could include, for example, temporarily blocking a street as part of a protest. "Aggravated riot" is a Class E felony, which is punishable by up to 6 years in jail and a fine of $3,000; the law also introduces a mandatory minimum of at least 45 days of imprisonment. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 8 Feb 2021; Approved by Senate 11 March 2021; Approved by House 28 April 2021; Signed by Governor 13 May 2021

Issue(s): Riot

return to map
Tennessee

HB 8005/SB 8005: Heightened Penalties for "Inconvenient" Protests and Protest Camps on State Property

The law heightens penalties for certain offenses that could encompass conduct by peaceful protesters. The law heightens existing criminal penalties for blocking a street, sidewalk, or "any other place used for the passage of persons, vehicles or conveyances" from a Class C to a Class A misdemeanor. Accordingly, protesters who obstruct or make it "unreasonably inconvenient" to use a street or sidewalk could face up to one year in jail. The law likewise heightens penalties for the existing offense of "obstructing" or "interfering with" a lawful meeting, procession, or gathering, from a Class B to Class A misdemeanor. Protesters who intentionally "interfere with" a meeting of the legislature or other government officials, including by staging a loud protest, could therefore face up to one year in jail. The law also targets protest encampments on the grounds of the Capitol and other areas by broadening the definition of "camping," and heightening penalties for camping on state property. As such, protesters who use or place any "piece of furniture," shelter, or structure on state property could be charged with a Class E felony, if they continue to do so 24 hours after receiving a warning. The offense would be punishable by up to six years in prison, a fine of $3,000, and restitution for any property damage. The law also amends Tennessee provisions on "riot," (which is defined broadly), including by requiring those convicted of "inciting" or "urging" a riot to pay restitution for any property damage incurred by the offense. When it was introduced, the legislation authorized the Tennessee Attorney General to intervene and prosecute offenses where there has been damage to state property, including those arising in the context of peaceful protests, if the district attorney declined to do so; however those provisions were removed prior to the law's enactment, and replaced with a requirement that district attorneys produce a report on such offenses and how they were dealt with.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 7 Aug 2020; Approved by House and Senate 12 August 2020; Signed by Governor Lee 20 August 2020

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

return to map
Tennessee

SB 264: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines

Creates new potential penalties for protests and demonstrations that "interrupt" or "interfere with" a pipeline or pipeline construction site. The law makes it a Class E felony for an individual to knowingly "destroy, injure, interrupt or interfere with" a pipeline, pipeline facility, or related infrastructure, including if it is under construction. The offense is a Class E felony, punishable by up to six years in prison and a $3,000 fine. As introduced, the law provided that an individual or organization that causes or "aids" damage or interference would likewise be guilty of a Class E felony, however these provisions were amended out prior to the law's passage. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 29 Jan 2019; Approved by Senate 18 Feb 2019; Approved by House 30 April 2019; Signed by Governor Lee 10 May 2019

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure

return to map
Tennessee

SB 0902: New penalties for protesters who block traffic

Imposes a new fine on any person who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly obstructs a public highway or street "including in the course of a protest" and in doing so interferes with an emergency vehicle's access to or through the highway or street. "Emergency vehicle" is broadly defined as "any vehicle of a governmental department or public service corporation when responding to an emergency," a police or fire department vehicle, or an ambulance. Unlawful obstruction of a street or highway was already a Class C misdemeanor subject to up to 30 days in jail; the law adds a $200 fine to the penalty. Sponsors made clear that the law was aimed at protests that obstructed highways. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 9 Feb 2017; Governor Haslam signed into law 12 April 2017

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Tennessee

HB 513 / SB 843: Heightened penalties for protesters who block sidewalks and streets

Would increase the penalty for knowingly or recklessly obstructing a sidewalk, street, or "or any other place used for the passage of persons, vehicles or conveyances." Instead of a Class A misdemeanor, the offense would be a Class E felony, punishable by up to 6 years in prison and a fine of $3,000. The bill would also immunize from prosecution a person who hits a protester with their car, if the protester was obstructing a sidewalk, street, or "or any other place used for the passage of persons, vehicles or conveyances," and the driver hit them unintentionally and was "exercising due care." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 4 Feb 2021.

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Traffic Interference

return to map
Tennessee

SB 1750: New penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

Would penalize protesters who wear masks or other face coverings. As introduced, the bill would make it a criminal offense for a person to wear a mask, hood, or device that covers a portion of their face and intentionally conceals their identity, on public property or private property without the owner's permission. The bill does not require that the person be committing some other unlawful act while concealing their identity. The offense would be a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $2,500 fine. The original version of the bill includes four exemptions: "traditional holiday costumes;" "lawfully engag[ing] in a trade, profession, occupation or sporting activity" that requires a mask, hood, or other device; theatrical productions, parades, and masquerade balls; and gas masks. Other expressive, First Amendment activity is not explicitly exempted. The bill was withdrawn the day after it was introduced. A co-sponsor of the bill said that it was "intended to target protesters and demonstrators who might commit crimes," and that they would file a "clarified version" of the bill soon. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 21 Jan 2020.

Issue(s): Face Covering

return to map
Tennessee

HB 0668/SB 0944: Eliminating driver liability for hitting protesters

Would have provided civil immunity for a motorist who injures a protester who was blocking traffic in a public right-of-way if the driver was exercising "due care." The bill, introduced in both the Tennessee House of Representatives and Senate, does not eliminate liability if the driver"s actions were "willful or wanton." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Feb 2017; Failed in committee 22 March 2017

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Traffic Interference

return to map
Texas

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.

(See full text of bill here)

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

return to map
Texas

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.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

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

Issue(s): Police Response

return to map
Texas

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

return to map
Texas

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

return to map
Texas

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.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 2 Mar 2021; Approved by Senate 27 April 2021

Issue(s): Riot

return to map
Texas

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

return to map
Texas

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

return to map
Texas

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

return to map
Texas

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

return to map
Texas

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

return to map
Utah

SB 173: Criminal penalties for protests that disturb legislative or other government meetings

Creates new potential penalties for individuals protesting convenings of the legislature or other meetings of government officials. The law expands "disorderly conduct" to include a person who recklessly causes public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm by making "unreasonable noises" at an official meeting or in a private place that can be heard at an official meeting. "Disorderly conduct" also includes obstructing pedestrian traffic at an official meeting or refusing to leave an official meeting when asked by law enforcement. The law also increases the penalty for disorderly conduct, such that it is punishable by a $750 fine on the first offense (an infraction), up to 3 months in jail if a person was warned to cease prohibited conduct (Class C misdemeanor), up to 6 months for a second offense (Class B misdemeanor), and up to 1 year for a third offense (Class A misdemeanor). Accordingly, the law could, for example, be used to penalize silent protesters who refuse to leave a legislative committee meeting. An earlier version of the bill explicitly made it unlawful to commit even a "single, loud outburst, absent other disruptive conduct, that does not exceed five seconds in length." (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 24 Feb 2020; Approved by Senate 5 March 2020; Approved by House 12 March 2020; Signed by Governor 30 March 2020

return to map
Utah

SB 138: New penalties for protesters who block traffic and immunity for drivers who injure them

Would institute new felony penalties for anyone found guilty of "riot" who intentionally "obstructed" traffic. The offense would be a third degree felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison. The bill's revised definition of "riot," while somewhat narrower than existing law, would still be broad enough to cover protests by three or more people where no violence or property destruction was committed. The bill provides that anyone charged with "riot" may be denied bail. Under the bill, anyone convicted on felony "riot" charges may not be employed by any state or local government entity for five years after the conviction; they also may not receive any state employment benefits during that time. The bill would also eliminate criminal and civil liability of a driver who unintentionally injured or killed someone near a protest. Under the bill, a driver would not be criminally or civilly liable if he injured or killed someone while "fleeing from a riot," believing that fleeing was necessary to avoid injury and exercising "due care" in doing so. These provisions, if enacted, could encourage reckless driving near protesters and injuries as a result. Finally, the bill waives a local government's immunity from a lawsuit for instances of "grossly negligent conduct" in which an employee failed to protect property or individuals during a "riot" or "violent assembly." If enacted, these provisions could encourage municipal governments to adopt overly aggressive law enforcement responses to protests in order to avoid lawsuits. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 28 Jan 2021; Approved by Senate 24 February 2021; Expired with end of session 5 March 2021

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Riot, Traffic Interference, State Liability

return to map
Utah

HB 370: New Penalties for Protests Near Pipelines, Roadways, and other Infrastructure

As introduced, the bill would have created new potential criminal liability for protesters in many locations by criminalizing acts that "inhibit" or "impede" critical infrastructure facilities. The bill's original text had a sweeping definition of "critical infrastructure facility" that included highways, bridges, transportation systems, food distribution systems, law enforcement response systems, financial systems, and energy infrastructure including pipelines--whether under construction or operational. The bill created a new felony offense for "inhibiting," or "impeding" the facility, its equipment, or operation, such that protesters who intentionally inhibited or impeded the operation of a roadway or construction of a pipeline could have faced life in prison. Amendments to the bill substantially narrowed the offense, however. The enacted law criminalizes "substantially... inhibiting or impeding" the operation of critical infrastructure only if doing so "causes widespread injury or damage to persons or property." Amendments also narrowed the definition of "critical infrastructure facility," including by removing highways, bridges, transportation systems, food distribution systems, law enforcement response systems, and financial systems from the definition. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted with improvements

Introduced 3 Feb 2023; Approved by House 14 February 2023; Approved by Senate 28 February 2023; Signed by Governor Cox 14 March 2023

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Traffic Interference

return to map
Virginia

SB 531: Penalties for highway protests and new legal defense for individuals who injure protesters

Would heighten the penalty for protestors who demonstrate on highways, by creating a new Class 1 misdemeanor offense for anyone who "maliciously obstructs" the "normal use" of a highway by standing or remaining on it or otherwise "hindering" its use. The offense would be punishable by up to a year in jail and $2,500. Under the bill, a person being civilly sued for wrongful death, injury, or property damage could newly assert an affirmative defense that the injury or damage was sustained by someone participating in a "riot." The bill also creates a civil action against government officials for damages caused during a "riot" or "unlawful assembly," if the officials prohibit law enforcement officers from taking action that would have "prevent[ed] or materially mitigate[d]" injuries or property damage caused by "or related to" a "riot" or "unlawful assembly." Such provisions could encourage authorities to allow overly aggressive law enforcement responses to protests, in order to avoid costly lawsuits. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 12 Jan 2022.

Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference, State Liability, Stand Your Ground

return to map
Virginia

SB 1308: New penalties for protests on highways

Would heighten penalties for protesters who intentionally disrupt highway traffic. The bill creates a new Class 1 misdemeanor offense, punishable by one year in jail, for "intentionally interfer[ing] with the orderly passage of vehicles" on highways. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 12 Jan 2021.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Virginia

SB 5079: New civil liability for law enforcement agencies that "stand down" during a riot or unlawful assembly

Would allow someone who is injured or sustains any property damage to sue the director of a law enforcement agency, if the person's injuries or damage were incurred as a result of the director ordering law enforcement officers not to take action in response to a riot or unlawful assembly. The bill provides that, in such lawsuits, a plaintiff may recover compensatory damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney fees and costs, including costs and reasonable fees for expert witnesses. If enacted, the bill's proposal would create incentives for law enforcement to use more aggressive, provocative tactics against protesters, including peaceful protesters, in order to avoid a costly lawsuit.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 17 Aug 2020; Expired with end of 2021 legislative session

Issue(s): Police Response, Riot, State Liability

return to map
Virginia

SB 5056: Heightened penalties for remaining at an unlawful assembly or riot

This bill is a combination of earlier bills, ranging from SB 5057 to SB 5062. It would increase the criminal penalty for remaining at the place of a declared "unlawful assembly" or "riot" after having been lawfully warned to disperse. The penalty would be a Class 1, rather than Class 3 misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $2,500 fine. Virginia law defines "unlawful assembly" broadly, to include a gathering of three or more people that "tends to inspire" a "well-grounded fear of serious and immediate breaches of public safety, peace or order." Peaceful protesters who failed to leave the scene of such a gathering, after being ordered to do so, could accordingly face up to one year in jail. The bill also would increase the penalty for obstructing emergency medical services after having been requested to move to a class 2 misdemeanor as well as make it a class 3 misdemeanor to "curse" law enforcement officers performing their assigned duties. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 17 Aug 2020; Expired with end of 2021 legislative session

Issue(s): Riot

return to map
Virginia

SB 5074: New penalties for protests that block emergency vehicles

Would heighten existing penalties for anyone who "unreasonably or unnecessarily obstructs the delivery of emergency medical services," or who "refuses to cease such obstruction or move on when requested to do so" from a Class 2 misdemeanor to a Class 6 felony, if the violation occurs at the site of a riot or unlawful assembly. Virginia law defines "unlawful assembly" broadly, to include a gathering of three or more people that "tends to inspire" a "well-grounded fear of serious and immediate breaches of public safety, peace or order." Under the bill, participants in a peaceful street protest who failed or were unable to make way for emergency vehicles, for instance, could face felony charges if their gathering was deemed to be an "unlawful assembly." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 17 Aug 2020; Expired with end of 2021 legislative session

Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference

return to map
Virginia

HB 1601: Banning protests by members of domestic terrorist groups

Would newly define and designate "domestic terrorist organizations," and bar their members from assembling in groups of three or more. The bill broadly defines an "act of domestic terrorism," in part echoing the state's definition of a hate crime. The bill would provide for state authorities to designate as a "domestic terrorist organization" an identifiable group that aims to commit an act of domestic terrorism or whose members individually or collectively have attempted to commit an act of domestic terrorism. According to the bill, members of a designated domestic terrorist organization are prohibited from assembling in groups of three or more persons. The bill provides that such an assembly is unlawful, and any individual who participates in such an "unlawful assembly" (whether a member or not) could be charged with a Class I misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $2,500 fine. If an individual carries a firearm or other deadly or dangerous weapon while participating in such an "unlawful assembly" of domestic terrorist group members, they are subject to a Class 5 felony, punishable by up to ten years in prison. A spokesman for the Attorney General's Office, which helped draft the bill, indicated that it was prompted by the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville on August 12. Critics of the bill have noted that the broad language of the bill could allow authorities to target minority communities who have "unpopular beliefs." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 19 Jan 2018.

Issue(s): Terrorism

return to map
Virginia

HB 1791: Expanded definition of "incitement to riot"

Would have expanded the definition of "incitement to riot" and heightened penalties for encouraging others to produce a riot against a law-enforcement officer, firefighter, or emergency medical personnel. Under the bill, encouraging others to engage in a peaceful protest that results in acts of force or violence against such officers or personnel is a felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Jan 2017; Approved by House 26 Jan 2017; Approved by Senate 13 Feb 2017; Vetoed by Governor McAuliffe 28 April 2017

Issue(s): Riot

return to map
Virginia

SB 1055: Heightened penalties for participation in an "unlawful assembly"

Would have broadened the scope of the state's anti-protesting laws. The bill would increase penalties for people who engage in an "unlawful assembly" after "having been lawfully warned to disperse," elevating the act from a Class 3 misdemeanor, which carries only a maximum $500 fine, to a Class 1 misdemeanor, which could be subject to up to one year in prison and a fine of up to $2,500. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 6 Jan 2017; Failed in Senate on 23 Jan 2017

return to map
Washington

HB 2358: New criminal penalties for protesters on highways

Would create two new crimes that could cover highway protesters and organizers of highway protests. Under the bill, someone in a group of four or more people who intentionally and unlawfully obstruct traffic on a state highway commits “obstructing highways,” a gross misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a $5,000 fine. However, the “leader or organizer” of such a group commits a Class C felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and $10,000. The bill does not define "leader or organizer" or indicate how that role would be designated. A second offense, “obstructing highways in disregard for public safety,” would cover groups of four or more who intentionally obstruct traffic on a state highway and create a risk of injury or property damage, impede an ambulance, or refuse to disperse when ordered to do so. The offense is a Class C felony.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 15 Jan 2024.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Washington

HB 2358: Heightened penalties for highway protesters and organizers

Would introduce a new offense that could cover participants and organizers of protests on state highways. Under the bill, anyone in a group of four or more people who intentionally block vehicles by unlawfully standing, sitting, or walking on a highway would be guilty of “obstructing highways,” a gross misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and $5,000. A “leader or organizer” of the group would be guilty of a Class C felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and $10,000. The bill does not define what constitutes a “leader” or “organizer.” Members of the group would also be guilty of a Class C felony if while blocking a highway they “create[] a risk” of property damage or injury, or if they refuse or fail to disperse after being ordered to do so. Individuals who have previous convictions of disorderly conduct, failure to disperse, obstructing highways, “or similar criminal behavior from other jurisdictions” would be required to pay a fine of at least $6,125 and serve a minimum 60-day sentence if they commit the offense of obstructing highways. Sponsors of the bill cited protests for a ceasefire in Gaza that blocked portions of an interstate.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 15 Jan 2024.

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

return to map
Washington

SB 6160: Heightened penalties for protests that block traffic

Would create a new felony offense that could cover street protesters who obstruct traffic and refuse to disperse. Under current state law, if a group of four or more individuals includes anyone whose conduct creates a substantial risk of injury or substantial property damage, each member of the group commits a misdemeanor if law enforcement orders them to disperse and they refuse to do so. The bill would raise this offense to a Class C felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and $10,000, if individuals refuse to disperse from a public road and are obstructing traffic. The bill would also increase the penalty for intentionally and unlawfully blocking vehicular or pedestrian traffic, from a misdemeanor to a gross misdemeanor, such that protesters who block a sidewalk could face up to 1 year in jail and $5,000.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 11 Jan 2024.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Washington

SB 5456: New penalties for "swarming" a car during a protest, and provision for driver immunity

Would create a new offense, "swarming" defined as one or more people participating in a protest or demonstration who "knowingly approach, surround, block" or "otherwise unlawfully impede or attempt to impede" the progress of a vehicle on a public street, highway, or parking lot. The offense of "swarming" applies regardless of whether the protest the people were participating in is authorized by a permit or not. It is a gross misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $3,000 fine; a subsequent offense is a Class C felony, punishable by up to 40 years in prison and a $100,000 fine. The bill also provides that a driver who injures someone while trying to avoid or flee from people engaged in "swarming," "disorderly conduct," or "criminal mischief" is immune from a civil lawsuit, as long as the injury was unintentional. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 15 Feb 2021.

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Traffic Interference

return to map
Washington

SB 5310: Steep penalties for protesters who block traffic, for protest organizers, and an expansive new "riot" offense

The bill creates a new felony offense that could be levied against protesters who block traffic on a highway. According to the bill, a group of four or more people who make passage on a highway "unreasonably inconvenient" without legal authority to do so, are guilty of "obstructing a highway," a Class C felony punishable by 5 years in prison and $10,000. The bill also provides civil immunity for a driver who injures or kills someone on the highway if the driver was "reasonably attempting" to avoid or "flee" the person. The bill creates a new felony offense of "leading an organized riot," an act sufficiently broadly defined to include organizing or supporting a peaceful protest that is deemed unlawful. Under the bill, "organizing, managing, directing, supervising, or financing" a group of three or more people with the intent "to promote the accomplishment of a pattern of criminal mischief," constitutes "leading an organized riot," a Class C felony. The bill would newly criminalize "riot," using a broad definition that could encompass peaceful protesters. The bill defines "riot" to include knowingly and unlawfully participating in an assembly with seven or more people, with "acts of conduct within that group" that create a "substantial risk" of property damage or personal injury. The offense does not require that an individual personally act in a way that threatens personal injury or property damage. For instance, if an individual joins a very large, spontaneous protest that does not have a permit, and someone "within that group" threatens to damage property, the individual could be charged with "riot." The offense is a gross misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $5,000 fine. Finally, the bill would waive the immunity of any "political subdivision," including counties, cities, and towns, making them civilly liable for property loss or personal injury resulting from any "riot" or "unlawful assembly" if law enforcement have not exercised "reasonable care or diligence" to prevent or "suppress[]" the riot or assembly. In such an event, the bill provides that the subdivision may be further subject to a fine of $10,000 per day, and lose up to one-half of its share of the state's "criminal justice assistance account" for up to one year. These provisions, if enacted, could encourage local governments to adopt overly aggressive law enforcement responses to protests, in order to avoid lawsuits. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 20 Jan 2021.

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Driver Immunity, Riot, Traffic Interference, State Liability

return to map
Washington

SB 5941: New penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

Would prohibit a person from "wearing a mask, hood, or device where any portion of the face is covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer" when they are on public or state-owned property including, e.g., during a protest. Under the bill, commission of this offense is punishable as a gross misdemeanor. State Senator Jim Honeyford said he sponsored this bill in response to vandalism and violence that he believes occurs "under the guise of political speech," that threatens citizens' "safety and welfare." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 22 May 2017; reintroduced 8 January, 2018.

Issue(s): Face Covering

return to map
Washington

SB 5009: Heightened penalties for protests that block traffic and interfere with "economic activities"

Would target protests that disrupt roadways, railroads, and other "legally permitted economic activities." The bill heightens penalties for illegal actions that aim to create economic harm by impeding legally-permitted economic activities. According to the bill, if a court finds that the perpetrator of another offense intended to cause economic disruption, his or her sentence can be extended 60 days for a misdemeanor, six months for a gross misdemeanor, and 12 months for a felony. The bill provides that those who fund or sponsor such actions can be charged as accomplices. The state senator who sponsored the bill indicated in November 2016 that it was drafted to respond to protests aimed at disrupting economic activities, which he deemed tantamount to "economic terrorism." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Jan 2017; reintroduced 8 January, 2018.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
West Virginia

HB 5091: Heightened penalties for protesters near pipelines and other infrastructure

Increases the penalties and broaden offenses that could cover nonviolent protesters near pipelines and other infrastructure. The law amends West Virginia’s 2020 critical infrastructure law to remove the limitation that the law’s offenses could only occur on critical infrastructure property “if completely enclosed by a fence or other physical barrier that is obviously designed to exclude intruders, or if clearly marked with a sign or signs that.. indicate that entry is forbidden.” As a result, many more infrastructure sites are covered by the 2020 law’s trespass and tampering offenses, which carry significant penalties. The law also makes convictions for second and subsequent offenses of either the trespassing or tampering offenses a felony punishable by at least 2 and up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $10,000-$15,000. The law increases the fine for a person who “vandalizes, defaces, or tampers with” equipment in a critical infrastructure facility that causes damage of more than $2,500, from $1,000-$5,000 to $3,000-$10,000. (As introduced, the bill made second convictions punishable by a minimum of 5 years and a fine of $100,000-$250,000, and increased the fine for tampering or vandalizing from $1,000-$5,000 to $25,000-$100,000.)

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 25 Jan 2024; Approved by House 6 February 2024; Approved by Senate 4 March 2024; Signed by Governor Justice 26 March 2024

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass

return to map
West Virginia

HB 4615: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines

Heightens potential penalties for protests near oil and gas pipelines and other infrastructure. Under the law, knowingly trespassing on property containing a critical infrastructure facility is punishable by a year in jail and a $500 fine. Criminal trespass on critical infrastructure property with intent to "vandalize, deface, tamper with equipment, or impede or inhibit operations" of the facility is a felony punishable by up to three years in prison and a $1,000 fine. Actually vandalizing, defacing, or tampering with the facility--regardless of actual damage--is a felony punishable by 5 years in prison and a $2,000 fine. An individual convicted of any of the offenses, and any entity that "compensates, provides consideration to or remunerates" a person for committing the offenses, is also civilly liable for any damage sustained. An organization or person found to have "conspired" to commit any of the offenses--regardless of whether they were committed--is subject to a criminal fine. The law newly defines "critical infrastructure facility" under West Virginia law to include a range of oil, gas, electric, water, telecommunications, and railroad facilities that are fenced off or posted with signs indicating that entry is prohibited.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 30 Jan 2020; Approved by House 13 February 2020; Approved by Senate 7 March 2020; Signed by Governor Justice 25 March 2020

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

return to map
West Virginia

HB 4618: Eliminating police liability for deaths while dispersing riots and unlawful assemblies

Reaffirms West Virginia's problematic law on rioting, and adds the West Virginia Capitol Police to those authorities who cannot be held liable for the deaths and wounding of individuals in the course of dispersing riots and unlawful assemblies. Under prior West Virginia law, the State Police, sheriffs, and mayors had authority to use means such as curfews and warrantless searches to disperse riots and unlawful assemblies; the law reaffirms and extends this authority to the Capitol Police. According to the law, if a bystander is asked to assist in the dispersal and fails to do so, he or she "shall be deemed a rioter." The law also adds Capitol Police to existing provisions eliminating liability if anyone present, "as spectator or otherwise, be killed or wounded," while the authorities used "any means" to disperse riots or unlawful assemblies or arrest those involved. The law was passed during a statewide strike by West Virginia teachers, thousands of whom protested in February 2018 at the State Capitol. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 13 Feb 2018; Approved by House 22 February 2018; Approved by Senate 8 March 2018; Signed by Governor Justice 10 March 2018

Issue(s): Police Response, Riot

return to map
West Virginia

HB 5446: New penalties for protesters who block streets and sidewalks

Would create new penalties for protesters who block streets, sidewalks, and other public passageways. Under the bill, someone who obstructs a highway, street, sidewalk or “other place used for the passage of persons, vehicles, or conveyances,” whether alone or with others, commits a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail. A second or subsequent offense would be a felony, punishable by up to 3 years in prison. The bill defines “obstruct” to include conduct that makes passage “unreasonably inconvenient.” As such, protesters on a sidewalk who were deemed to have made it “unreasonably inconvenient” for pedestrians to pass could face jail terms.   

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 5 Feb 2024.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
West Virginia

HB 5446: New penalties for protesters on streets and sidewalks

Would create a new offense that could cover protesters who unlawfully “obstruct” a sidewalk, street, or “any other place used for the passage” of people or cars, or who disobey a law enforcement order to move from such a place. The bill defines “obstruct” to include “render[ing] passage unreasonably convenient.” The offense of "obstructing" a passageway would be a serious misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and $500, but second and subsequent offenses would be a felony punishable by up to three years in prison and $1,000. As such, individuals who twice engage in a sidewalk protest without a permit could face felony charges and multiple years in prison.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 5 Feb 2024.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
West Virginia

HB 4994: Potential "terrorism" charges for nonviolent protesters

Would create several new, sweeping “terrorism” offenses that could cover nonviolent protesters. One new offense, “terrorist violent mass action,” is defined to include “violent protests” and “riots” that “appear intended” to coerce or intimidate groups, governments, or societies. The bill provides that participation in a “terrorist violent mass action” constitutes an “terrorist act,” and any entity that uses such actions “to advance its agenda” is a “terrorist group.” “Violent protest” is not defined in the bill or elsewhere in the law, nor does the bill require that a person individually commit any act of violence or property damage to be culpable of “terrorist violent mass action.” As such, someone who peacefully participates in a nonviolent but rowdy protest where a few individuals commit property damage could conceivably face “terrorism” charges. Likewise, a nonprofit group involved in organizing or supporting such a protest “to advance its agenda” could be deemed a “terrorist organization” under the bill. Individuals and organizations not directly involved in such a protest could also face felony “terrorism” charges for providing protesters with “material support”—broadly defined by the bill as “any property, tangible or intangible, or service.” The bill also creates a new felony “terrorism” offense for “actions… taken for political reasons to bar other persons from exercising their freedom of movement, via foot or any other conveyance.” As defined, that could cover a large, peaceful march that even temporarily stops traffic. Meanwhile, the bill provides complete immunity for people who “injure perpetrators or supporters of perpetrators” while attempting to “escape” such “terrorism.” This provision would seem to eliminate consequences for acts of violence against protesters by people whose movement has been blocked by a protest, including drivers who hit protesters with their cars. The bill also creates new felony “threatening terrorism” offenses for a person or group that "for political reasons blockades property containing critical infrastructure,” or that “trespasses for political reasons onto property containing critical infrastructure.” As such, nonviolent protesters who block a road to a pipeline or enter onto pipeline property could face “threatening terrorism” charges, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The bill is largely similar to HB 2916, proposed in the 2023 session.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 22 Jan 2024.

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Driver Immunity, Infrastructure, Riot, Terrorism, Traffic Interference, Trespass

return to map
West Virginia

HB 2916: Potential "terrorism" charges for nonviolent protests

Would create two new, sweeping “terrorism” offenses that could cover nonviolent protesters. One new offense, “terrorist violent mass action,” is defined to include “violent protests” and “riots” that “appear intended” to coerce or intimidate groups, governments, or societies. The bill provides that “any person or group that participates” in such an action commits “terrorism.” “Violent protest” is not defined in the bill or elsewhere in the law, nor does the bill require that a person individually commit any act of violence or property damage to be culpable. As such, someone who peacefully participates in a nonviolent but rowdy protest where a few individuals commit property damage could conceivably face felony charges for engaging in a “terrorist violent mass action.” Likewise, a nonprofit group involved in organizing or supporting such a protest could be deemed a “terrorist organization” under the bill. Individuals and organizations not directly involved in such a protest could also face felony “terrorism” charges for providing protesters with “material support”--broadly defined by the bill as “any property, tangible or intangible, or service.” The bill also creates a new “terrorism” offense for “actions… taken for political reasons to bar other persons from exercising their freedom of movement, via foot or any other conveyance.” As defined, that could cover a large, peaceful march that even temporarily stops traffic; under the bill, participants in such a march could face charges of “unlawful restraint, kidnapping, and terrorism.” Meanwhile, the bill provides complete immunity for people who “injure perpetrators or supporters of perpetrators” while attempting to “escape” such “unlawful restraint, kidnapping, and terrorism.” This provision would seem to eliminate consequences for acts of violence against protesters by people whose movement has been blocked by a protest, including drivers who hit protesters with their cars. Additionally, under the bill, any person or group that conducts “a deliberate attack” on “critical infrastructure” also commits “terrorism.” “Attack” is not defined or limited, for instance, to actions resulting in any actual damage, such that any large demonstration near infrastructure that authorities want to shut down could seemingly be deemed an “attack.”

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 23 Jan 2023.

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Driver Immunity, Infrastructure, Riot, Terrorism, Traffic Interference

return to map
Wisconsin

AB 426: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines

Creates new potential penalties for protests near oil and gas pipelines and other property of "energy providers." The law expands existing provisions related to trespass and property damage to broadly include the property of all companies in the oil and gas industry. Under the law, trespass onto the property of any "company that operates a gas, oil, petroleum, refined petroleum product, renewable fuel, water, or chemical generation, storage, transportation, or delivery system" is a Class H felony, punishable by six years in prison and a fine of $10,000. Accordingly, protests in a range of locations may be covered, whether on land containing a pipeline or the corporate headquarters of an oil company. Any damage to property of such a company, with the intent to "cause substantial interruption or impairment of any service or good" provided by the company, is likewise a Class H felony under the law. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 12 Sep 2019; Approved by Assembly 11 October 2019; Approved by Senate 5 November 2019; Signed by Governor Evers on 21 November 2019

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass

return to map
Wisconsin

AB 70 / SB 96: BROAD NEW DEFINITION OF "RIOT" and related felony offenses

Would broadly define "riot" under Wisconsin law and create vague new felony offenses that could cover and chill peaceful protest activity. The bill defines a “riot” as a “public disturbance” involving an act of violence or the threat of violence by someone in a gathering of 3 or more people. No actual damage or injury need take place for a gathering to become a “riot,” only a “clear and present danger” of damage or injury. As such, a large street protest where a single participant threatens to push somebody could be deemed a "riot," with no actual violence or property damage being committed by anyone. The bill creates a Class I felony offense--punishable by up to 3.5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine--for anyone who intentionally incites another “to commit a ‘riot.’” The bill defines “incite” as “to urge, promote, organize, encourage, or instigate other persons.” The incitement offense as drafted is not limited to urging actual violence against people or property, but could seemingly cover any expression of support for demonstrators in a crowd that had been deemed a “riot.” The bill also creates a Class H felony--punishable by up to 6 years in prison and $10,000--for someone who intentionally "commits an act of violence” while part of a “riot.” Yet “an act of violence” is vague and could cover an act of self-defense, non-criminal acts of violence against property--such as destroying one’s own protest sign--as well as minor unlawful violence against property like knocking over a trash can. (See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 27 Feb 2023; Approved by Assembly 22 March 2023

Issue(s): Riot

return to map
Wisconsin

SB 296 / AB 279: Broad new definition of "riot"

Would newly define "riot" under Wisconsin law such that peaceful protesters could face steep penalties. Currently, Wisconsin law broadly defines an "unlawful assembly" as a group of three or more people who cause a "disturbance of public order" and make it "reasonable to believe" the group will damage property or people; the definition specifically includes a group of three or more who assemble to block a street or building entrance. Under the bill, an "unlawful assembly" in which at least one person commits an "act of violence" that creates a "clear and present danger" of property damage or injury; or threatens to commit such an act and has the ability to do so; or commits an "act of violence" that "substantially obstructs" some governmental function, is a "riot." As such, a large street protest where a single participant threatens to push somebody could be deemed a "riot," with no actual violence or property damage being committed by anyone. Under the bill, anyone who attends a "riot" or refuses an order to disperse a "riot" commits a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by a mandatory 30 days and up to 9 months in jail and a $10,000 fine. If the "riot" results in "substantial" property damage or injury, anyone who attends commits a Class I felony, publishable by up to 3 and a half years in prison. The bill also creates a new Class A misdemeanor for any person who "incites or urges" three or more people to engage in a "riot;" the bill does not define "incite" or "urge." Finally, if a person "obstructs" "any public or private thoroughfare," or any entrance to a public building while participating in a "riot," it is an additional Class A misdemeanor. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 8 Apr 2021; Approved by the House and Senate on 25 January 2022; Vetoed by Governor Evers on 31 March 2022

Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference

return to map
Wisconsin

AB 617: New penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

Would make it a crime to wear a mask to conceal one's identity when an individual is on a sidewalk, walkway, bike path, highway, or public property. It also makes it a crime to be masked while participating in a "meeting or demonstration" on private property without the permission of the property owner. There are exceptions for wearing a mask for religious beliefs, a holiday costume, protecting oneself from the elements, or because it is part of one's occupation. However, there is no exception for wearing a mask during a demonstration. The offense is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to 9 months in jail or a $10,000 fine. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 19 Nov 2019.

Issue(s): Face Covering

return to map
Wisconsin

AB 444: Mandatory sanctions for campus protesters

Would impose mandatory disciplinary measures on student protesters in certain cases. The bill requires that the University of Wisconsin's Board of Regents adopt a policy that includes a range of disciplinary sanctions for anyone under an institution's jurisdiction who engages in "violent or other disorderly conduct that materially and substantially disrupts the free expression of others." The bill further requires universities in the state system to suspend for at least one semester any student "who has twice been found responsible for interfering with the expressive rights of others." If a student is found responsible for such interference a third time, they must be expelled. As a result, rowdy protests in public areas of campus that, for instance, made it difficult to hear a speech, would be banned and its participants liable to penalties. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 13 Sep 2019; Approved by House on 11 February 2020

Issue(s): Campus Protests

return to map
Wisconsin

AB 395/SB 303: Expanded definition of "riot"

As originally introduced, Assembly Bill 395 would have newly defined a "riot" under Wisconsin law and provided for heavy criminal penalties for participants in a riot. The introduced bill broadly defined "riot" as a "public disturbance" including an act or threat of violence among an assembly of three or more people that "constitutes a clear and present danger" of damage to persons or property. Accordingly, under the introduced bill, individuals in a gathering where a violent or destructive incident took place could be charged with participation in a riot, classified as a Class I felony punishable by three and a half years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The bill was amended in late 2017, revising and narrowing the offense of "participation in a riot" to require individual intent: Under the amended bill, it is a Class I felony to "intentionally" commit or threaten to commit an act of violence that "constitutes a clear and present danger" of damage to persons or property, while engaging in a "public disturbance" with at least three people. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 19 Jun 2017.

Issue(s): Riot

return to map
Wisconsin

AB 396/SB 304: New penalties for blocking traffic during a riot

Would create a new criminal offense of blocking a public or private thoroughfare or access to a private or public building while participating in a riot (as defined and penalized in AB 395). The bill was amended in late 2017 to add elements of individual intent; under the amended version, it is a Class H felony to "intentionally" commit or threaten to commit an act of violence that "constitutes a clear and present danger" of damage to persons or property, while blocking a thoroughfare or access point as part of a "public disturbance" with at least three people. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 19 Jun 2017.

Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference

return to map
Wisconsin

AB 397/SB 305: New penalties for carrying a weapon during a riot

Would impose new penalties for participation in a riot (as defined and penalized in AB 395) while carrying a dangerous weapon. Doing so is classified as a Class G felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $25,000 fine. The bill was amended in late 2017 to add elements of individual intent: Under the revised bill, it is a Class G felony to "knowingly use a dangerous weapon" and "intentionally" commit or threaten to commit an act of violence that "constitutes a clear and present danger" of damage to persons or property, while engaging in a "public disturbance" with at least three people. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 19 Jun 2017.

Issue(s): Riot

return to map
Wisconsin

AB 299: Mandatory sanctions for campus protesters

Would impose mandatory disciplinary measures on student protesters in certain cases. The bill requires that students who engage in "violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, obscene, unreasonably loud, or other disorderly conduct that interferes with the free expression of others" on Wisconsin college or university campuses be compelled to attend a mandatory disciplinary hearing. The bill also requires campus authorities to suspend for a minimum of one semester or expel a student who interferes more than once with another's free speech, for instance by protesting a controversial campus speaker. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 5 May 2017; Approved by Assembly 21 June 2017

Issue(s): Campus Protests

return to map
Wyoming

HB 10: New penalties for protests near critical infrastructure

Would heighten potential penalties for protests near oil pipelines and other infrastructure facilities, including those under construction. The bill creates the offense of "critical infrastructure trespass," defined as entering or remaining on a critical infrastructure facility or the construction site of such a facility, while aware or on notice that presence is not authorized. Under the bill, critical infrastructure trespass is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of $1,000. The bill also creates the offense of "impeding critical infrastructure," defined as intentionally impeding the operations of or access to an infrastructure facility or facility construction site, or tampering with or damaging facility equipment. A person who impedes critical infrastructure, e.g. by blocking the entrance to a pipeline construction site during a protest, may be charged with a felony, punishable by up to ten years in prison and $10,000 if the impediment results in over $1,000 in damage or lost profits. The bill also provides that an organization that "aids, abets, solicits, compensates, hires, conspires with, commands or procures" a person to commit the crime of impeding critical infrastructure is liable to a fine of up to $100,000 and civil damages to the infrastructure facility for lost profits. "Critical infrastructure facility" is broadly defined and among many other things includes oil and gas pipelines, refineries, water treatment plants, airports, and railroad tracks - or the construction sites thereof.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 14 Dec 2018; House consideration denied 4 February 2019

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

return to map
Wyoming

HB 0137: Mandatory sanctions for campus protesters

Would create mandatory disciplinary sanctions that could be applied to peaceful protesters on college campuses. The bill requires the University of Wyoming and community colleges to adopt a "free speech protection policy" that includes the mandatory suspension for at least one year or expulsion of any student who is twice found responsible for "infringing upon the expressive rights of others." The bill also calls for a "range of disciplinary sanctions" to be imposed on anyone under the university's jurisdiction who "materially and substantially interferes with the free expression of others." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 12 Feb 2018; Failed in House 16 Feb

Issue(s): Campus Protests

return to map
Wyoming

SF 0074: New penalties for protests near "critical infrastructure"

Would raise potential penalties for protests near oil pipelines and other facilities by providing for the offense of "critical infrastructure trespass." The offense is defined as entering or remaining on a "critical infrastructure facility" while aware or on notice that presence is not authorized. Under the bill, critical infrastructure trespass is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of $1,000. If a person trespasses with the intent to impede the facility's operations, or damage, deface, or tamper with facility equipment, the offense is a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison and a $100,000 fine. The bill also provides that an organization that "aids, abets, solicits, encourages, compensates, conspires, commands or procures" a person to commit felonious infrastructure trespass is liable to a fine of up to $1 million. "Critical infrastructure facility" is broadly defined and among many other things includes oil and gas pipelines, refineries, water treatment plants, railroad tracks, and telephone poles. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 7 Feb 2018; Approved by Senate 27 Feb 2018; Approved by House 10 March 2018; Vetoed by Governor Mead 14 March 2018

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

return to map

For more information about the Tracker, contact Elly Page at EPage@icnl.org.