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.
Latest updates: Apr. 30, 2025 (Arizona, Idaho, Indiana), Apr. 29, 2025 (Pennsylvania, Tennessee), Apr. 28, 2025 (North Carolina, North Dakota, West Virginia)
12 entries matching in provided filters in 7 states and 1 federal. Clear all filters
US Federal
HR 2272: Blocking financial aid to students who commit a "riot"-related offense
Would bar federal financial assistance and loan forgiveness for any student convicted of a crime in connection with a “riot.” The bar would apply to students convicted of “rioting” or “a) inciting a riot; b) organizing, promoting, encouraging, participating in, or carrying on a riot; c) committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or d) aiding or abetting any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot.” Many states define “riot” broadly enough to cover peaceful protest activity; many also have broad laws criminalizing “incitement to riot” that cover protected expression. The bill would bar financial aid and loan forgiveness for students convicted under such provisions. As written, the bill would also bar financial aid and loan forgiveness to students convicted of any offense related to “organizing, promoting, encouraging” a riot, or “aiding and abetting” incitement or participation in a riot, which could cover an even wider range of expressive conduct, from sharing a social media post to cheering on demonstrators in a protest that was deemed a “riot.”
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 21 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Riot, Limit on Public Benefits
return to map
US Federal
HR 2273: Providing for visa revocation and deportation of noncitizens who commit a "riot"-related offense
Would require the Secretary of State to revoke the visa of and make deportable a noncitizen student, scholar, teacher, or specialist convicted of a crime in connection with a “riot.” Under the bill, individuals in the US on an F-1, J-1, or M-1 visa would have their visas revoked and would be deportable if they were convicted of “rioting” or “a) inciting a riot; b) organizing, promoting, encouraging, participating in, or carrying on a riot; c) committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or d) aiding or abetting any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot.” Many states define “riot” broadly enough to cover peaceful protest activity; many also have broad laws criminalizing “incitement to riot” that cover protected expression. The bill would provide for the deportation of foreign students, scholars, and others convicted under such provisions. As written, the bill would also provide for their deportation if convicted of any offense related to “organizing, promoting, encouraging” a riot, or “aiding and abetting” incitement or participation in a riot, which could cover an even wider range of expressive conduct, from sharing a social media post to cheering on demonstrators in a protest that was deemed a “riot.”
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 21 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Riot
return to map
US Federal
S 982: 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 pro-Palestine campus protests as motivation for the bill; he introduced the same bill in 2024.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 12 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Riot
return to map
Missouri
HB 495 / SB 52: Broadened “riot” offense and heightened penalties
**Note: This law was amended prior to its enactment, and all provisions related to "riot" and "traffic interference" were removed.** As introduced, the law would have made “rioting” a felony and significantly expand the scope of the offense such that it could cover peaceful demonstrators. The introduced version of the law removed a requirement in preexisting Missouri law than an individual use “force or violence” in order to be criminally liable for “riot”: As such, under the law as introduced, an individual engages in “rioting” if they merely assemble with six people and commit any unlawful act. A first offense would be a Class D felony (up to seven years in prison and $10,000) rather than a misdemeanor, and subsequent offenses would be a Class C felony (up to 10 years and $10,000). For instance, participants in a seven-person vigil that commits a “peace disturbance” by blocking a sidewalk—a misdemeanor crime—could face felony charges. If anyone is injured during the “riot” or property damage of more than $5,000 occurs, the offense would be a Class B felony (up to 15 years), while if a police officer or other safety official is injured, rioting would be a Class A felony (up to life in prison). As introduced, the law would also have created a new offense of “unlawful traffic interference,” defined as walking, sitting, standing or otherwise being present on a public street “in such a manner as to block passage by a vehicle,” with the intention of “impeding” traffic. As written, the offense did not require that traffic actually be impeded for the offense to occur, such that peaceful protesters who gather in the street could be covered even if they do not actually impede any vehicles. Traffic interference would have been an infraction for the first offense, but a Class A misdemeanor (punishable by up to one year in jail) for second offense and a Class E felony (four years in prison) for third and subsequent offenses. Lawmakers amended the law before passing it to remove all provisions related to "riot" and "traffic interference."
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: enacted with improvements
Introduced 8 Jan 2025; Approved by House 20 February 2025; Approved by Senate 10 March 2025; Signed by Governor Kehoe 26 March 2025
Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference
return to map
New York
S 6746: New penalties for protesters who wear a mask
Would create a new criminal offense, “concealment of identity during a protest,” that would cover peaceful protesters who wear a mask while demonstrating. Under the bill, a person who wears a mask or facial covering that disguises their face “so as to conceal the identity of the wearer” while “involved in a lawful assembly, unlawful assembly, protest, or riot” commits the offense. The bill provides an exception for masks and other face coverings worn as protection from weather, for religious reasons, for medical purposes, or as a costume for a holiday or exhibition. While only a violation, the new offense would restrict individuals’ ability to protest lawfully while remaining anonymous, for instance to avoid retaliation.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 21 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Face Covering, Riot
return to map
New York
S 5911: 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 that is “likely to create public alarm”—regardless of whether such protest ever takes place or creates “public alarm.” 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: pending
Introduced 3 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Riot
return to map
Ohio
SB 53: New civil cause of action against protesters and supporters
Would make protesters, organizers, and funders 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. The same bill was introduced as SB 267 in the 2023-2024 session.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 28 Jan 2025.
Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Police Response, Riot
return to map
Oregon
HB 2534: Felony penalties for protesters who impede traffic
Would expand the definition of “riot” such that the felony offense could cover demonstrators who peacefully protest in the street. Oregon law defines “riot” as engaging in “tumultuous and violent conduct” with a group of five or more other people in a way that “intentionally or recklessly creates a grave risk of causing public alarm.” The offense is a Class C felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and $125,000. The bill would define “tumultuous and violent conduct” to include “imped[ing] traffic,” creating a “traffic hazard,” or “block[ing] the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.” As such, a large sidewalk protest that even momentarily overflowed onto a street in a way that could be considered a “traffic hazard” could be deemed a “riot,” and demonstrators could face felony penalties regardless of whether their conduct was “tumultuous” or “violent.”
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 13 Jan 2025.
Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference
return to map
Texas
SB 2876: Heightened penalties for protesters who conceal their identity
Would increase criminal penalties that could cover peaceful protesters who choose to wear a mask. Under the bill, a protesters charged with “riot” would face more serious penalties if they were wearing a mask or other face covering with intent to conceal their identity, as compared to someone without a mask. The offense would be a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and $4,000, instead of a Class B misdemeanor. The crime of “riot” under Texas law is defined broadly and does not require violence or other unlawful conduct: The offense covers a group of seven demonstrators whose conduct “substantially obstructs law enforcement or other governmental function or services,” or whose “physical action deprives any person of a legal right or disturbs any person in the enjoyment of a legal right.” Under the bill, a protester who chose to wear a mask to avoid retaliation for their political views could face significant jail time if their nonviolent protest was deemed a “riot.”
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 14 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Face Covering, Riot
return to map
Texas
HB 3061: Heightened penalties for masked protesters
Would increase the penalty for protest-related offenses if committed by someone wearing a mask or other disguise to conceal their identity while “congregating with other individuals who were disguised or masked.” Under the bill, the penalty for trespass, “disorderly conduct,” and “riot” would be one degree more severe if committed by a group in which some individuals wore masks. The bill provides an exemption to the penalty enhancement for masks worn during Halloween, a masquerade ball, or “similar celebration,” but not for avoiding retaliation for political speech. “Disorderly conduct” and “riot” are broadly defined under Texas law. Protesters who make “unreasonable noise” in public, for instance, may be charged with “disorderly conduct”; under the bill, such protesters could face significant jail time rather than a fine if they were masked. “Trespass” in Texas also carries significant penalties if committed on college campuses, "critical infrastructure," or other select locations, such that peaceful protesters who trespassed on a college campus could face felony rather than misdemeanor penalties if they were masked to avoid retaliation.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 19 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Face Covering, Infrastructure, Riot, Trespass
return to map
West Virginia
HB 2757: 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 written, 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. A nearly identical bill was proposed in 2024 (HB 4994) and 2023 (HB 2916).
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 21 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Driver Immunity, Infrastructure, Riot, Terrorism, Traffic Interference, Trespass
return to map
Wisconsin
AB 88: BROAD NEW DEFINITION OF "RIOT" and related felony offenses and civil liability
Would broadly define "riot" under Wisconsin law and create vague new felony offenses as well as expansive civil liability that could cover 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.” As drafted, the incitement offense 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” (not defined) while part of a “riot.” Finally, the bill makes civilly liable protesters who allegedly commit a “riot” or “vandalism” offense, as well as any person or organization that provides “material support or resources” intending that they be used to engage in such conduct. Civil liability would apply regardless of whether anyone was criminally charged or convicted of “riot” or “vandalism.” The bill’s definition of “material support” is similar to the broad federal law definition of material support for terrorism, and includes funding as well as “communications” and “training.” As such, the civil liability provisions could make individuals and groups even indirectly involved in organizing or otherwise supporting protests vulnerable to lawsuits and extensive monetary damages.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 28 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Riot
return to map
