HR 5721: Federal penalties for protests near judges and court officers

Would create a new federal offense that could cover protesters who demonstrate near federal judges, jurors, or court staff, regardless of their intent. Under current law, it is illegal to demonstrate or use a sound-amplification device “in or near a building or residence used by” a federal judge, juror, witness or court officer—only if one does so with the intention of influencing them or otherwise “interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice.” The bill would remove this intent requirement such that the offense could cover protesters who demonstrate in or near any building or residence that they know is occupied by a judge, juror, witness or court officer, regardless of their purpose for doing so. So, for instance, someone could face federal penalties if they knowingly protest outside a restaurant where a judge is eating, even if they are demonstrating about an issue unrelated to a court case.

Status: pending

Introduced 8 Oct 2025.

HR 4846: Creating an affirmative defense for drivers who hit protesters

According to the bill's title, it would create an affirmative defense in criminal and civil cases related to "motor vehicle incidents" involving someone who is convicted of "riot." In social media posts, the bill's sponsor said it would "allow Americans to run over" people protesting in the street.  

Status: pending

Introduced 1 Aug 2025.

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Riot

S 2376 / HR 4620: Racketeering penalties for those connected to "riot" offenses

Would add rioting-related offenses to the list of predicate offenses under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Under the bill, entitled the "Stop Financial Underwriting of Nefarious Demonstrations and Extremist Riots" (Stop FUNDERS) Act, an organization or individual found to have "conspired" with individuals to engage in or encourage a protest that is deemed a "riot" could be prosecuted under RICO. Sponsors of the bill cited entities that fund or coordinate protests as potential targets for the legislation. A violation of RICO can lead to up to 20 years in prison and seizure of assets. Third parties can also bring civil suits if injured by a RICO violation and potentially receive treble damages. 

Status: pending

Introduced 22 Jul 2025.

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

HR 4232: Stripping nonprofit status and federal funding of organizations connected to obstruction or "riot" offenses

Would revoke the tax-exempt status and prohibit federal funding of an organization if an officer of the organization or a member of its board of directors is convicted of an offense under Sections 111 or 2101 of U.S. Code Title 18. Section 111 makes it a crime to assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with certain federal officers and employees. The federal government has used Section 111 to charge protesters who have, for example, blocked the path of federal law enforcement. Section 2101 includes a number of rioting offenses, including inciting, participating in, or encouraging a "riot" or aiding or abetting any person inciting or participating in a "riot;" the underlying federal definition of "riot" is broad, moreover, and requires only a “public disturbance” where one individual in a group commits violence. Under the proposed law, if an officer or board member is convicted of violating Section 111 or 2101, even if they were acting independently of their work with a nonprofit, the organization could lose its tax-exempt status and federal funding.

Status: pending

Introduced 27 Jun 2025.

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Police Response, Riot, Limit on Public Benefits

HR 4053: Barring small business aid to individuals convicted of "riot" offenses

Would bar individuals convicted of “riot” offenses from receiving small business assistance from the federal government. The bill provides that a person convicted of a felony for actions during or “in connection with” a riot is prohibited from participating in any program run by the Small Business Administration, if the riot resulted in the destruction of a small business. The definition of “riot” under federal law is broad, requiring only a “public disturbance” where one individual in a group commits violence. An individual can be convicted of participating or inciting a “riot” based on conduct that was neither violent nor destructive. Under the bill, individuals convicted of such offenses would become ineligible for support such as disaster relief loans and other small business assistance. The same bill was introduced as HR 6653 in 2022. 

Status: pending

Introduced 17 Jun 2025.

Issue(s): Riot, Limit on Public Benefits

HR 4015 / S 2115: Federal penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would create federal penalties for protesters who block public roads and highways. Under the bill, it would be a federal crime to “in any way or degree, purposely obstruct, delay, or affect commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce by blocking a public road or highway.” The offense would also cover individuals who merely “attempt” or “conspire” to block a public road or highway. The offense would be punishable by an unspecified fine and up to 5 years in federal prison. The same bill was introduced as S 3492 / HR 6926 in the 2023 session.

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Jun 2025.

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

S 2001: Providing for deportation of non-citizens who commit protest-related offenses

Would cancel the visa of any individual convicted of protest-related crimes and provide for the individual’s deportation within 60 days. Under the bill, individuals convicted of any “crime (i) related to [their] conduct at and during the course of a protest; (ii) involving the defacement, vandalism, or destruction of Federal property; or (iii) involving the intentional obstruction of any highway, road, bridge, or tunnel” would be deportable. The bill requires that such individuals’ visas be “immediately” cancelled and the individuals removed from the US within 60 days. If enacted, a non-citizen convicted of even a nonviolent misdemeanor “related to” a protest, such as trespass or disorderly conduct, could face deportation. The bill’s sponsor cited protests around immigration raids in Los Angeles as the impetus for his bill.

Status: pending

Introduced 10 Jun 2025.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

S 2000: Heightened penalties for "riot" offenses

Would amend the federal anti-rioting law to raise the maximum penalty to ten years in prison, instead of five, for participating in or inciting a “riot,” or aiding or abetting someone to do so. The federal definition of “riot” is broad, requiring only a “public disturbance” where one individual in a group commits violence. Under the bill, someone who committed or abetted an “act of violence” during the commission of a “riot” offense would face a minimum one-year sentence, while an individual who assaulted a law enforcement officer would face a sentence of at least one year and up to life in prison. Federal law defines “act of violence” broadly to include using force against property—or just attempting or threatening to use such force. As such, if enacted, the bill could result in steep criminal penalties for protesters who do not actually engage in violence or destructive conduct. The bill’s sponsor cited protests around immigration raids in Los Angeles as the impetus for his bill.

Status: pending

Introduced 10 Jun 2025.

Issue(s): Riot

HR 3859: Providing for deportation of non-citizens who commit protest-related offenses

Would make deportable noncitizens who commit or “admit to” certain offenses that can occur during protests. Under the bill, a noncitizen could be deported if she is convicted of or “admits to having committed” participation in a “riot” under federal, state, or local law, or an act that “involves” using force against a law enforcement officer, or an act that “involves” vandalism of public property. The bill would apply to undocumented immigrants as well as lawful residents. Such individuals would be ineligible for asylum or other discretionary relief; they would be subject to detention throughout removal proceedings and, if deported, would be permanently barred from reentering the U.S. The bill would seemingly grant discretion to executive branch authorities, rather than a court, to determine that someone “admitted” to an offense or other act specified under the bill. Further, “riot” is broadly defined under federal and many state laws, such that it can cover individuals who are not engaged in violence. For instance, if enacted, authorities could seek to deport a noncitizen who posted on social media that she attended a protest that local police deemed a “riot” based on others' conduct. The bill’s sponsor cited protests in Los Angeles against federal immigration raids and arrests as motivation for the bill.

Status: pending

Introduced 10 Jun 2025.

Issue(s): Riot

SB 500: Civil immunity for drivers and others who hurt protesters

Would shield people from civil lawsuits for killing or injuring protesters in certain situations, if they were acting in self-defense. Under the bill, a person could not be civilly sued for causing death, personal injury, or property damage if they were acting in self-defense and their actions “arose from another individual’s conduct in furtherance of a riot.” Neither the bill nor existing Michigan law define what would constitute “conduct in furtherance of a riot,” a vague phrase that could cover a range of lawful and nonviolent actions connected to a protest that was deemed a “riot,” such as handing out water bottles or joining in a protest chant. If enacted, the bill could encourage violence by drivers and others against people who are participating in or supporting a protest.

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Aug 2025.

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Riot

HB 4664: Heightened penalties for highway protests

Would increase the penalty for protesters who obstruct traffic on roads that are classified as highways. Under the bill, anyone who blocks or otherwise “interfere[s] with the normal flow” of traffic on a “highway” while participating in “an assembly of 10 or more individuals” commits a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 93 days in jail and a $5,000 fine. Current law provides that the offense is a civil infraction, subject to fines of up to $500. “Highways” in Michigan include streets that run through cities and have stoplights, such that protesters whose demonstration paused traffic on certain streets could face jail time if the bill were enacted.

Status: pending

Introduced 17 Jun 2025; Approved by House 16 September 2025

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

HB 1831: New penalties for masked protesters

Would make it a crime to demonstrate while wearing a mask in some circumstances. Under the bill, it would be a third-degree misdemeanor to wear a mask or other device to conceal one’s face, voice, or identity while in a public place. The bill provides for certain exemptions, including “traditional holiday costumes,” masks worn for religious purposes, medical masks worn to prevent the spread of disease, as well as costumes and masks worn during a “parade, ritual, initiation, ceremony, celebration or similar type of gathering” for which a permit has been obtained. It is not clear whether the last category of exemptions would apply to masks worn during permitted protests, and no exemption in the bill would cover masks worn during spontaneous or otherwise unpermitted protests. If enacted, a demonstrator wearing a mask to avoid retaliation for their participation in a spontaneous protest could face up to a year in jail. Sponsors of the bill have said that the legislation is directed at pro-Palestine protesters who have worn masks.

Status: pending

Introduced 8 Oct 2025.

Issue(s): Face Covering

SB 913: Increased penalties for certain offenses if combined with "riot"

Would make a violation of the state's law on "riot" an aggravating factor for sentencing of certain other crimes. Under the bill, steeper criminal penalties would apply, for instance, to the offense of trespass, if the offense was committed while the defendent engaged in a protest that was deemed a "riot." Pennsylvania law defines "riot" broadly to include participating in "disorderly conduct" with two or more people with intent to facilitate a misdemeanor--a definition that could cover, for instance, a noisy protest that involves a misdemeanor offense like blocking the sidewalk. As a result, under the bill, someone who trespasses while part of such a protest could face additional prison time. 

Status: pending

Introduced 31 Jul 2025.

Issue(s): Riot, Trespass

SB 915: New felony penalties for protest organizers and funders

Would create a new felony offense for knowingly organizing, controlling, or financing a "riot." The bill defines "financing" as "contributing more than a de minimus amount of money or materials to aid in a riot"; "organizing" is defined as "knowingly arranging or planning" a riot. Pennsylvania law defines "riot" broadly to include participating in "disorderly conduct" with two or more people with intent to facilitate a misdemeanor--a definition that could cover, for instance, a noisy protest of three people that involves a misdemeanor like blocking the sidewalk. As a result, under the bill, someone who knowingly plans such a protest, or donates to an advocacy group to support such a protest, could face up to seven years in prison. 

Status: pending

Introduced 31 Jul 2025.

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Riot