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
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
Missouri
HB 3259: New civil liability for protest organizers and supporters
Would extend civil liability for damage resulting from certain protests to organizers and supporters, broadly defined. Under current Missouri law, any participant in an “unlawful or riotous” assembly is liable for property damage or personal injury caused by the assembly. The bill expands this liability to anyone “directing, advising, encouraging, or soliciting” the assembly, including “organizers and sponsors” of such assemblies. The bill would newly make such parties jointly and severally liable, such that any one defendant could be held liable for all damages. As such, for instance, a bystander who cheers on a protest that is later deemed unlawful and results in any damaged property could be sued by the property owner for “encouraging” the protest. The bill does not require knowledge or intent to further unlawful activity in order for civil liability to apply.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 10 Feb 2026.
Issue(s): Civil Liability, Riot
New York
A 11304: Disclosure requirements for organizations that "compensate" protesters
Would require some organizations involved in protest organizing and support to file disclosures with the state or face steep penalties. Under the bill, anyone who “compensates” someone to participate in a protest must file disclosure with the New York Attorney General beforehand, and provide “visible signage” at the protest “noting the presence of compensated participants.” Organizations that fail to do so are subject to a $10,000 fine per violation. Protesters who receive compensation must “conspicuous[ly]” identify themselves as “paid protesters” while participating in a public demonstration. The bill does not define “compensate,” so it is not clear whether it means only financial compensation or whether those who provide, for instance, transportation or water for protest participants would also be required to file disclosures. The Attorney General must maintain a public registry of organizations “employing paid demonstrators”. If enacted, the bill's disclosure regime could deter individuals from accepting paid organizing or logistical roles in protests and expose them to public identification for engaging in constitutionally protected activity.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 11 May 2026.
Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders
