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)
9 entries matching in provided filters in 4 states. Clear all filters
Alabama
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).
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 18 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Traffic Interference
return to map
Minnesota
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.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 17 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): Traffic Interference
return to map
Minnesota
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.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 13 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure, Traffic Interference, Trespass
return to map
Minnesota
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.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 13 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): Traffic Interference
return to map
Minnesota
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.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 13 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): Traffic Interference
return to map
North Carolina
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.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 25 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Civil Liability, Traffic Interference
return to map
West Virginia
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.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 6 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Traffic Interference
return to map
West Virginia
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.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 4 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Traffic Interference
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
