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.”

Status: pending

Introduced 21 Mar 2025.

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

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.” 

Status: pending

Introduced 21 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): Campus Protests, Riot

S 1017: New federal criminal penalties for protests near pipelines

Would create a new federal felony offense that could apply to protests of planned or operational pipelines. The bill would broadly criminalize under federal law “knowingly and willfully” “vandalizing, tampering with, disrupting the operation or construction of, or preventing the operation or construction of” a gas pipeline. A range of peaceful activities could be deemed “disrupting… the construction of” a pipeline, from a rally that obstructs a road used by construction equipment, to a lawsuit challenging a pipeline’s permit or zoning approval. The bill does not define “disrupt,” such that even a brief delay would seemingly be covered. Further, the underlying law provides that any "attempt" or "conspiracy" to commit the offense would be punished the same as actual commission. As such, individuals as well as organizations that engage in the planning or facilitation of a protest that is deemed to “disrupt” pipeline construction could be covered. The offense would be punishable by up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 for an individual, or $500,000 for an organization.

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure

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. 

Status: pending

Introduced 12 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): Campus Protests, Riot

HR 2065: Harsh penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

Would make it a federal crime, subject to a lengthy prison sentence, to wear a mask or other disguise while protesting in an "intimidating" or “oppressive” way. Under the “Unmasking Hamas Act,” anyone "in disguise, including while wearing a mask" who "injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates any person" exercising their constitutional rights could be sentenced to up to 15 years in prison as well as fined. The bill does not define “oppress,” nor does the bill specify what is meant by “disguise,” other than that it includes a “mask.” The bill’s substantive provisions are identical to the “Unmasking Antifa Act,” which lawmakers have introduced in several previous sessions. Sponsors of the bill made clear that it is a response to pro-Palestine protesters, some of whom have worn masks to avoid retaliation.

Status: pending

Introduced 11 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): Face Covering

S 937: Barring student protesters from federal loans and loan forgiveness

Would exclude student protesters from federal financial aid and loan forgiveness if they commit any crime at a campus protest. The bill would cover someone convicted of “any offense” under “any Federal or State law” that is “related to the individual’s conduct at and during the course of a protest” at a college or university. As such, a student convicted of even a nonviolent, state law misdemeanor at a campus protest, such as failing to disperse, would be deemed ineligible for federal student loans; they would also be ineligible for having existing federal loans forgiven, cancelled, waived or modified. The sponsor of the bill said it was a response to pro-Palestine protests at colleges and universities.

Status: pending

Introduced 11 Mar 2025.

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

SB 247: New penalties for street protesters

Would create a new criminal offense that could cover protesters who demonstrate in the street or obstruct access to businesses and residences. The bill, which focuses on targeted residential picketing, also broadly prohibits protesters from “block[ing] any public road, the ingress or egress of any residence, or the ingress or egress of any place of employment while picketing or protesting.” The prohibition would seemingly cover a large street protest, regardless of whether it actually interfered with traffic, as well as a large protest in an urban area that even temporarily blocked the entrance to a shop or apartment building. A first offense would be a Class C misdemeanor (up to three months in jail), and subsequent offenses would be a Class B misdemeanor (up to six months in jail).

Status: pending

Introduced 18 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

HB 412: Felony penalties for protesters near gas and oil pipelines

Would substantially increase existing penalties that could cover protesters who demonstrate on pipeline property. Under the bill, unauthorized entry onto “critical infrastructure,” which includes pipelines, would be a Class D felony punishable by at least one and up to five years in prison, rather than a serious misdemeanor. As such, demonstrators who enter onto pipeline property could face felony arrest and significant prison time. The trespass offense covers entry onto areas of “critical infrastructure” that are not posted against trespassing or enclosed by a physical barrier, if any authorized person forbids entry. 

Status: pending

Introduced 6 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass

HB 2880: Banning protest encampments on campus

Would bar protest encampments on the campuses of state colleges and universities without prior authorization. Under the bill, individuals or groups that establish an unauthorized “encampment” would no longer be lawfully present on campus for the purpose of speech protections under Arizona law; they would be criminally liable to prosecution for trespass and damaging public property; and they would be liable for “direct and indirect costs” of any damage “that resulted from the individual’s intentional or negligent conduct relating” to the encampment. The bill defines “encampment” as “temporary shelter” installed on campus and used to stay overnight or “for a prolonged period of time.” The bill would require colleges and universities to order individuals to dismantle and vacate unauthorized encampments; if the individuals refuse to comply, the institution would be required to take disciplinary action and report the individuals to local law enforcement for trespassing. The bill's sponsor said that it was motivated by pro-Palestine protests on college campuses.

Status: pending

Introduced 12 Feb 2025; Approved by House 3 March 2025; Approved by Senate 30 April 2025

Issue(s): Campus Protests, Trespass, Camping

HB 602: Stripping financial aid from student protesters

Would bar state financial aid from college and university students who violate campus rules or are convicted of a crime related to a “disruptive” protest on campus. Under the bill, a student who is convicted of a crime or is determined to have violated their school’s code of conduct as a result of engaging in “materially and substantially disruptive conduct” on campus, would be immediately denied state funds for loans, grants, and scholarships. The bill defines “materially and substantially disruptive conduct” broadly to include conduct that would “hinder” another person’s expressive activity or prevent a “lawful meeting” or “gathering,” including by creating “loud or sustained noise,” “occupying or materially disrupting” access to campus facilities, or merely violating campus “time, place, and manner” rules for protests. As such, for instance, a student who was disciplined for participating in a noisy protest outside of a speaking event in violation of campus rules could have their state financial aid revoked. The threat of losing financial aid could have a broader chilling effect on campus protests.

Status: pending

Introduced 24 Feb 2025.

Issue(s): Campus Protests

HF 952: Requiring state permission for protests in the capitol and on capitol grounds

Would require organizers to have a government sponsor in order to hold protests in or near the Iowa capitol. Under the bill, organizers cannot hold “events” in capitol buildings or on capitol grounds unless they have a “recommendation” either from a statewide elected official or by both a member of Iowa’s state senate and its house of representatives. The bill would also prohibit the same person from holding more than six “events” per year in or around the capitol. Neither the bill nor the relevant provisions of Iowa law define “events,” such that they could seemingly include public protests and demonstrations. As such, the bill would effectively give elected officials authority to allow or disallow protests near the capitol.

Status: pending

Introduced 12 Mar 2025.

SF 1501: Heightened penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would heighten penalties for protesters who intentionally “interfere with” or “disrupt” traffic that is entering, exiting, or on a freeway or a roadway on airport property. Under the bill, 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 relevant provisions are identical to HF 329 / SF 728. 

Status: pending

Introduced 17 Feb 2025.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

SF 1363: New penalties for pipeline protesters and supporters, and protesters who block traffic

Would create new civil and criminal liability for funders and supporters of protesters who peacefully demonstrate on pipeline or other utility property. Any person or entity that "recruits, trains, aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with" a person who trespasses onto a “critical public service facility, utility, or pipeline” would be civilly liable for any damages committed by the trespasser under the bill. 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. Additionally, the bill would make the person who trespasses onto the critical public service facility, utility, or pipeline strictly liable for civil damages. Similar provisions were introduced as SF 1493 in the 2023-2024 session. The bill would also make it a gross misdemeanor to obstruct traffic on a freeway or on a public road within airport property, with intent of obstructing or otherwise interfering with traffic. As written, the offense could cover protesters who even momentarily delayed cars on a freeway while demonstrating on the side of the freeway or on an overpass. Similar provisions were introduced as SF 1285/HF 1967 in the 2021-2022 session.   

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Feb 2025.

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

HF 329 / SF 728: Heightened penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would heighten penalties for protesters who intentionally “interfere with” or “disrupt” traffic that is entering, exiting, or on a freeway or a roadway on airport property. Under the bill, 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. A nearly identical bill was proposed as HF 1967 / SF 1285, introduced in 2021.

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Feb 2025.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

HF 367 / SF 180: New civil liability for street protesters

Would allow third parties or the government to sue protesters if they interfere with traffic on certain public roads. Under the bill, someone who intentionally “interferes with” or “obstructs” passage on any “public highway” would be civilly liable for damages and attorneys fees. Any injured person, private entity, or state or local government could bring such a lawsuit, though the bill provides that the government cannot bring both a civil suit and criminal charges for the same conduct. “Highways” in Minnesota include many two-lane roads with stop signs and stoplights. As such, protesters whose demonstration paused or delayed traffic on certain roads could face costly litigation by, for instance, a company that claimed it was “damaged” by the delay.

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Feb 2025.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

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.

Status: pending

Introduced 21 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): Face Covering, Riot

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.

Status: pending

Introduced 3 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): Riot

SB 484: Enabling companies and other employers to sue protesters

Would allow any employer—including corporations, small businesses, and state and local government agencies—to sue people who protest near the employer’s place of employment. The bill would dramatically broaden the state’s “Workplace Violence Prevention Act,” which currently allows such suits only by employers on behalf of employees who were harassed or threatened by someone. The bill would amend the law to allow employers to sue on their own behalf. The bill would also significantly expand the grounds for such suits, such that they could be brought against any individual who engages in “mass picketing” that “hinder[s] or prevent[s]… the pursuit of any lawful work or employment,” or who “obstruct[s] or interfer[es] with the entrance to or egress from any place of employment,” or who “obstruct[s] or interfer[es] with free and uninterrupted use of public roads, streets, highways, railways, airports, or other ways of travel.” As such, a company could for instance sue people who stage a protest on the side of the road that slows traffic near the company’s offices, retail stores, or factory. The law does not require that the employer suffer any economic or other harm in order to bring such an action. The action could result in a “civil no-contact order,” under which a court could order the individual or group to “not to visit… or otherwise interfere with the employer or… [their] operations”, as well as any “other relief deemed necessary and appropriate by the court.” Failure to abide by the order—for instance, by continuing to protest—could result in fines or imprisonment under the law. While the bill provides that it is not “intended, or shall be construed, to conflict with, restrict, limit, or infringe upon rights protected by the North Carolina or United States Constitution,” it at the same time covers a significant amount of First Amendment protected conduct, and the prospect of a costly lawsuit could be sufficient to deter individuals from protesting in the first place.

Status: pending

Introduced 25 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): Civil Liability, Traffic Interference

SB 743: Ban on protests that disturb worshippers

Would make it a serious criminal offense to protest in a way that disturbs people engaged in religious observation. Under the bill, someone who “willfully disturbs, interrupts, or disquiets” a group of “people met for religious worship” commits a misdemeanor punishable by a year in jail and $500, or a felony punishable by two years in prison and $1,000 for subsequent offenses. As written, the bill would seemingly allow anyone who was the target of a protest—for instance, lawmakers at the statehouse—to make a protest illegal simply by starting to pray. The prohibition extends to any unauthorized “protest [or] demonstration” within one mile of the individuals engaged in religious worship. “Disturb” and “disquiet” are not defined by the bill, such that even a silent demonstration that was visible to people engaged in religious worship as far as one mile away could be prohibited. The bill was introduced as a substitute to SB 743 on March 25, 2025. 

Status: pending

Introduced 25 Mar 2025; Approved by Senate 27 March 2025

SB 481: Restrictions on public employees' ability to protest

Would broadly prohibit public employees from participating in protests during work hours in most situations. Under a committee substitute to the bill introduced on February 25, it would be unlawful for state or local government employees including public school teachers to “speak on or participate in a matter of public concern deemed a matter of larger societal significance” in “an organized form of protest” during their normal working hours. The bill would allow public employees to protest during working hours only if they were using annual leave and if their actions did not create “an undue burden on the employer’s interest in an efficient, disruptive-free workplace”—a vaguely worded condition that employers could abuse to restrict employees' participation in disfavored protests. The bill would also prohibit public employees from using publicly owned computers, transportation, or other equipment for conduct related to participation in protests.

Status: pending

Introduced 25 Feb 2025.

SB 683: New penalties for protests near pipelines and other infrastructure

Would create several new criminal offenses that could cover fossil fuel protesters and protest organizers. Under the bill, “conspir[ing] with another person” to trespass onto “critical infrastructure” property would be a third-degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum $5,000 fine. The bill defines “critical infrastructure” broadly to include a range of posted or fenced-off areas containing facilities for gas and oil production, storage, and distribution, including above- and belowground pipelines, as well as a number of electric, water, telecommunications, and other utilities—whether in operation or under construction. As such, under the bill, planning a protest that would enter onto a pipeline construction site would be a crime punishable by up to a year in jail, even if the protest never takes place. Actually trespassing onto a pipeline construction site or other “critical infrastructure” property would likewise be punishable by up to a year in jail, under the bill, and doing so with intent to “vandalize, deface, tamper with equipment or impede or inhibit operations” would be a third-degree felony, punishable by up to three years in prison. As the bill does not further define “impede or inhibit,” a protest that entered onto a pipeline construction site with the goal of even fleetingly delaying construction could seemingly be covered by the felony offense. Willfully “vandalizing” or “defacing” “critical infrastructure,” or conspiring to do so, would be a third-degree felony as well. The bill further provides that the owner of “critical infrastructure” may sue anyone who is convicted of or merely arrested for an offense under the bill and claim damages for any harm to property, “including damages to pipeline construction."

Status: pending

Introduced 28 Apr 2025.

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

SB 2876: Heightened penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

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

Status: pending

Introduced 14 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): Face Covering, Riot

HB 3061: Heightened penalties for masked protesters

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

Status: pending

Introduced 19 Feb 2025.

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

SB 713: Enabling civil lawsuits against protesters for "picketing"

Would create a broad civil cause of action that could be used against peaceful protesters near streets, places of employment, or homes. The bill would prohibit someone from engaging in “mass picketing” that “hinder[s] or prevent[s]… the pursuit of any lawful work or employment,” or that “obstruct[s] or interfer[es] with entrance to or egress from any place of employment,” or that “obstruct[s] or interfer[es] with free and uninterrupted use of public roads, streets, highways, railways, airports, or other ways of travel,” as well as “picketing a private residence by any means or methods whatsoever.” Under the bill, anyone who is “the subject of” such protests could bring a cause of action against the protesters, regardless of whether they suffered economic or other harm. The bill would require a court to enjoin the protest and award court costs and reasonable attorneys fees to a prevailing plaintiff in such an action. As such, a company could sue to stop a sidewalk protest near a retail outlet, and the protesters could have to pay for the lawsuit in addition to ending their demonstration. Further, the bill provides that someone who continues to engage in prohibited picketing in violation of an injunction must pay a civil fine of $1,000 for every day of the violation. Any organization that “continues to sponsor or assist” prohibited picketing in violation of an injunction is subject to a civil fine of $10,000 for every day of violation. While the bill provides that it “does not apply to picketing that is authorized under the United States Constitution or the Constitution of West Virginia,” it at the same time covers a significant amount of First Amendment protected conduct, and the prospect of a costly lawsuit could be sufficient to deter individuals from protesting in the first place.

Status: pending

Introduced 6 Mar 2025.

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

HB 3135: 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 at least $500 and one month in jail. A second or subsequent offense would be a felony, punishable by at least $1,000 and at least three months and up to three 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. A substantially similar bill was introduced as HB 5446 in 2024.

Status: pending

Introduced 4 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

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).

Status: pending

Introduced 21 Feb 2025.

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

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.

Status: pending

Introduced 28 Feb 2025.

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