US Federal
S 3942 / HR 7799: New criminal and civil liability for fiscal sponsors of projects involving protest activity
Would expose fiscal sponsors to expanded criminal and civil liability for conduct by groups or projects they support, including protest-related activity. The bill, entitled the “Stop Proxy Organizations Nurturing Subversive Operations and Riots (SPONSOR) Act,” would make 501(c)(3) organizations that provide fiscal sponsorship criminally liable for offenses “related to or arising from” the sponsorship. It would also create civil liability for any “covered activity” that is “related to or arising from” the sponsorship. The bill defines “covered activity” to include “physically blocking” any article in commerce “to intentionally prevent the lawful movement” of commerce. Because street protests may delay traffic or commercial activity, this provision could sweep in nonviolent protest activity. Under current law, in some fiscal sponsorship arrangements, the sponsors may already bear liability for unlawful conduct by the sponsored project. The bill would expand such liability to all models of fiscal sponsorship, including arrangements where the sponsor merely provides grants or administrative support to a separate entity. It would also create new grounds for civil liability linked to protest-related activity. As a result, if a fiscally sponsored project organized a peaceful protest that temporarily blocked traffic, the sponsor could face civil lawsuits or potential criminal exposure. Sponsors of the bill described it as legislation to “hold sponsors of violent protests accountable.”
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 26 Feb 2026.
Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Traffic Interference
Georgia
HB 1322: Heightened penalties for "riot"
Would make “riot” a felony rather than a misdemeanor and provide for a steep penalty. 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 charges and, if convicted, at least one and up to 20 years in prison. A nearly identical bill was introduced as HB 994.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: defeated / expired
Introduced 17 Feb 2026.
Issue(s): Riot
Louisiana
HB 429: Terrorism penalties for protests near gas and oil facilities
Would significantly expand the definition of “critical infrastructure” and make trespass onto “critical infrastructure” with certain intent a terrorism offense under state law, such that peaceful protesters near gas and oil infrastructure could face terrorism charges. Current Louisiana law defines “critical infrastructure” broadly to include “any and all structures, sites, or equipment” located in or on certain facilities, including oil and gas storage facilities and pipelines, whether established or under construction. Under current law, it is a felony to unlawfully enter onto or remain on “critical infrastructure” after being ordered not to by an authorized person, or if the critical infrastructure is enclosed by a physical barrier. The bill would expand the definition of “critical infrastructure” to include all “oil and natural gas facilities and operations,” including “private and public roads primarily used in such operations” and “equipment” involved in such operations. The bill would additionally amend Louisiana’s “terrorism” law such that “unauthorized entry of a critical infrastructure” would qualify as a terrorism offense if committed with the intent to “intimidate” a civilian population or “influence government policy or conduct through intimidation or coercion.” Under the bill, such offense would be punishable by a minimum of 20 years with hard labor. If enacted, the bill would seemingly allow terrorism charges against individuals who demonstrate on public roads used “primarily” by gas or oil facilities in order to influence government policy.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 25 Feb 2026; Approved by House 7 April 2026
Issue(s): Infrastructure, Terrorism, Trespass
Missouri
SB 1800: New restrictions on campus protest
Would require public colleges and universities to adopt significant new limitations on campus protests, and bar state student financial aid for some demonstrators who violated campus policy. The bill requires all public colleges and universities to adopt an expressive activity policy that among other things prohibits: a) engaging in “expressive activities” on campus between 10pm and 8am; b) erecting tents or otherwise “camping” on campus; c) using sound amplification while engaging in “expressive activities” on campus during class hours; d) engaging in “expressive activities” in the last two weeks of a school term by inviting speakers or using sound amplification or drums; and e) wearing a mask or other disguise while engaging in “expressive activities” on campus with certain intent, including intent to "intimidate others." Under the bill, students who engage in “materially and substantially disruptive conduct” on campus and either violate the school’s policies or commit any criminal offense would be ineligible for state student financial aid for two years. The bill creates a broad definition of “materially and substantially disruptive conduct” that includes simply violating the school’s “time, place, and manner” restrictions on expressive activity if someone “reasonably should know” that the violation “would significantly hinder another person’s or group’s expressive activity.” For example, participation in a noisy protest in violation of the school’s policies that makes it difficult for counterprotesters to be heard, could seemingly result in a two-year ban on financial aid under the bill.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 26 Feb 2026.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Face Covering, Limit on Public Benefits
