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.”

Status: pending

Introduced 26 Feb 2026.

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

HB 2862: New penalties for masked protesters

Would create a new offense that could cover peaceful demonstrators who wear masks. The bill would criminalize wearing a mask “while present at a public assembly” if the wearer intended to conceal their identity. The offense would be a Class 3 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 30 days in jail and $500, but second and subsequent violations would be a Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and $2,500. The bill exempts certain face coverings, including holiday costumes worn to celebrate the holiday, religious coverings, and “medical devices” if prescribed by a doctor. The bill does not exempt masks worn for expressive purposes, medical masks without a prescription, or masks worn to protect the wearer’s privacy. If enacted, a demonstrator wearing a mask to avoid retaliation for their participation in a peaceful protest could face jail time.

Status: pending

Introduced 20 Jan 2026; Approved by House 2 March 2026

Issue(s): Face Covering

SB 1093: Expanded definition of "riot" and "conspiracy to riot"

Would expand the definition of “riot” and “conspiracy to riot.” Current Arizona law defines “riot,” a Class 5 felony, as recklessly using or threatening to use force or violence, together with at least two other people, in a way that disturbs the public peace. The bill would expand the definition to include the use or threat of force or violence that results in any amount of property damage. Under this definition, demonstrators in a protest that results in incidental damage such as trampled landscaping or scuffed paint could be at greater risk of liability for felony “riot.” The bill would also revise Arizona law on “conspiracy" when involving the crime of "riot." Under current law, an individual may only be liable for felony conspiracy if they intend to aid commission of a crime, they agree with another person that someone will commit a crime, and someone in the conspiracy commits an overt act that furthers the crime. Under the bill, individuals could be liable for “conspiracy to riot” even in the absence of an overt act; mere intent and an agreement to engage in conduct that would constitute “riot” would be sufficient.

Status: pending

Introduced 6 Jan 2026; Approved by Senate 23 February 2026

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Riot

HB 2136: Heightened penalties and new protest-related offenses

Increased penalties for “disorderly conduct” and traffic obstruction: The bill would increase the penalty for “disorderly conduct” from a misdemeanor to a felony if committed by three or more people. Arizona law defines “disorderly conduct” broadly; the offense includes making “unreasonable noise” intended to “disturb the peace,” or making a “protracted commotion” or “display” intended to prevent a lawful meeting. Under the bill, such conduct would be a Class 6 felony, punishable by a year in prison and fines, if it involved three or more people. The bill would similarly increase the penalty for obstructing a public road or other thoroughfare, converting the offense to a Class 6 felony if it involved three or more people. Broad new felony offenses: The bill would additionally create two new, broadly defined Class 5 felony offenses with implications for protesters. The first, “civil terrorism,” is defined as “any unlawful act”--specifically identifying several crimes including "disorderly conduct" and "vandalism"--committed with “intent to coerce or intimidate a civilian population.” The offense does not require violence or the threat of imminent violence. As drafted, it would cover low-level offenses that may occur in the course of peaceful protest activity, like trespass or obstructing a sidewalk, and convert them into felony crimes based on the message being conveyed by protesters if deemed intended to “intimidate” others. The second proposed felony, “subversion,” is defined to include commission of “any unlawful act” with intent to “advance the interests of a terrorist organization,” defined as any organization designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the federal government. The offense similarly requires no violence, or threat or advocacy of violence, and would introduce felony penalties for, e.g., peaceful demonstrators in an unpermitted protest independently advocating for conditions that aligned with the interests of an FTO. Racketeering liability: The bill would make “felony disorderly conduct,” “riot,” "civil terrorism" and "subversion" predicate offenses that could be prosecuted under Arizona’s racketeering law. As a result, protest participants, organizers, and supporters could face prosecutions or civil lawsuits under Arizona’s racketeering law, for instance based on allegations that they were part of an “enterprise” that was engaged in “disorderly conduct.” 

Status: pending

Introduced 6 Jan 2026; Approved by House 9 March 2026

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

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.

Status: pending

Introduced 25 Feb 2026; Approved by House 7 April 2026; Approved by Senate 26 May 2026

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Terrorism, Trespass

SB 35: New penalties for protesters near houses of worship

Would criminalize peaceful protests within 50 feet of a house of worship if they “threatened to disrupt” worshippers. As introduced, the bill broadly bars engaging in a protest, demonstration, or other assembly within 50 feet of a place of worship, if done in a manner that “disrupts, [or] threatens to disrupt… any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise” their right of religious freedom. Violators would be subject to a $500 fine and fifteen days' imprisonment with no possibility of probation or suspended sentence. The bill does not define “disrupt,” nor is it clear how one could “disrupt” another person. As such, individuals peacefully marching on the public sidewalk in front of a church, synagogue, or mosque could face arrest and jail time for “threaten[ing] to disrupt” worshippers, even if the marchers did not intend to disrupt or disturb their worship and no disturbance actually occurred. The bill's sponsor introduced the legislation shortly after a protest inside a church in St. Paul, MN, that resulted in arrests.

Status: pending

Introduced 6 Feb 2026.

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.

Status: pending

Introduced 26 Feb 2026.

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

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.

Status: pending

Introduced 10 Feb 2026.

Issue(s): Civil Liability, Riot

HB 2174: Eliminating civil and criminal liability for drivers who hit protesters

Would create civil and criminal immunity for a driver who kills or injures a protester in certain circumstances. Under the bill, a driver would not be criminally or civilly liable for killing or injuring someone who was participating in an “unlawful or riotous assemblage,” if the driver was “attempting to flee” the assemblage, “reasonable believe[d]” they were in danger, and exercised “due care.” If enacted, the bill could encourage vehicular violence against protesters and allow drivers to evade civil damages and criminal penalties for hitting demonstrators in a protest that had been deemed “unlawful.”

Status: pending

Introduced 7 Jan 2026.

Issue(s): Driver Immunity

HB 2555: Registration and reporting requirements for protest organizers and donors, criminal penalties for protesters, and legal protections for drivers who hit protesters

Reporting requirements: The bill would require some protest organizers and nonprofits that support protests to register as lobbyists and report to the state, with criminal and civil penalties for failure to do so. Under the bill, individuals who receive “any thing of monetary value” as compensation for “or provided in association with” attending or organizing “protest activity” would have to register as a “general lobbyist.” Any person, nonprofit, or other organization that provides such compensation for “protest activity” would be required to register as a “general lobbyist principal.” Both the recipient and donor would be required to file reports to the state, to be made public, within one week of any protest activity. The reports would have to include detailed data including the amount of funding involved, the funding source and recipient, date and location of each protest activity, and the protest’s purpose. The state would be empowered to levy penalties of up to $1,000 per day for each day that a recipient or donor failed to file the requisite report or did so inaccurately. A recipient’s failure to file such a report more than once would also be a Class E felony under the bill. In addition to the likely chilling effect of potential penalties for failure to publicly report peaceful protest organizing, the administrative burden created by the reporting system would be significant for both protest organizers and donors. New criminal penalties for masked protesters and street protesters: The bill would create a new Class A misdemeanor for wearing any garment that masks or “obfuscates any part of a person’s face” during an unlawful assembly. A second violation would be a Class E felony. As written, a demonstrator wearing a winter scarf or a medical mask could face up to a year in jail for participating in a peaceful protest that was deemed unlawful for, e.g., blocking pedestrians in a public place. The bill would also create a broad new Class A misdemeanor of “false imprisonment” which could cover peaceful protesters. The offense is defined to include individuals who unlawfully “impede[] the movement of another unlawfully” by “participating as part of a group that blocks rights-of-way on sidewalks, roadways, or any other location in which another has a right to be.” As such, the offense could cover individuals protesting without a permit, for instance, who obstruct others’ movement on a street or sidewalk. Legal immunity for drivers who hit protesters: The bill would create civil and criminal immunity for a driver who kills or injures a protester in certain circumstances. Under the bill, a driver would not be criminally or civilly liable for killing or injuring someone who was participating in an “unlawful or riotous assemblage,” if the driver was “attempting to flee” the assemblage, “reasonable believe[d]” they were in danger, and exercised “due care.” If enacted, the bill could encourage vehicular violence against protesters and allow drivers to evade civil damages and criminal penalties for hitting demonstrators in a protest that had been deemed “unlawful."

Status: pending

Introduced 7 Jan 2026.

Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Driver Immunity, Face Covering, Traffic Interference

S 1319 / A 4363: Expanded "riot" definition, new penalties for "incitement to riot," and new legal defense for people who hurt protesters

Would expand the legal definition of "riot," a third degree offense under the bill, to include any group of three or more individuals whose shared intent to engage in disorderly and violent conduct results in "imminent danger" of property damage or personal injury, or actual damage or injury. Notably, the new definition does not require that the individuals' conduct be disorderly or violent, or that they commit any actual damage or injury. Under the bill, a "riot" consisting of 25 or more people, or one that "endangers the safe movement of a vehicle," is automatically an "aggravated riot," a new crime of the second degree under the bill. As such, large groups of protesters or ones that block traffic, even temporarily, could face up to 10 years in prison, a fine of up to $150,000, or both. Under the bill, "inciting" someone to participate in a riot is a crime of the third degree, punishable by 5 years in prison. "Aggravated incitement," which results if there is property damage over $5,000 is a crime of the second degree, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The bill also creates a new criminal offense of "mob intimidation," defined as a group of three or more people who act with a "common intent" to compel "or attempt to compel" another person to "do or refrain from doing any act," or "assume, abandon, or maintain a particular viewpoint" against their will. The offense is punishable by up to 6 months in jail and a $1,000 fine. The bill could also encourage violence against protesters by creating a new affirmative defense in civil lawsuits for personal injury, death, or property damage, such that a defendant could avoid liability by establishing that the injury, death, or damage they committed "arose from" conduct by someone "acting in furtherance of a riot." Finally, the bill creates a new civil right of action against a municipal government that fails to provide "respond appropriately to protect persons and property during a riot or unlawful assembly," making them civilly liable for damages, including personal injury or property damage. These provisions, if enacted, could encourage municipal governments to adopt overly aggressive law enforcement responses to protests in order to avoid lawsuits. The same bill was proposed as S 399/A 4714 in 2024.

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Jan 2026.

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Riot, Traffic Interference, State Liability, Stand Your Ground

S 763 / A 737: Heightened penalties for blocking traffic, riot, disorderly conduct, and related offenses

Would make it a felony offense to purposely or recklessly obstruct a public road while engaging in "disorderly conduct" or a "riot," punishable by up to 18 months in prison and a $10,000 fine. Both "disorderly conduct" and "riot" are defined broadly under New Jersey law: "Disorderly conduct," for instance, could include "recklessly creating a risk" of "public inconvenience" by causing a "hazardous condition," or using "unreasonably loud and offensively coarse" language in a public place. The bill would also broaden the definition of "riot," such that a group of seven or more people who engage in "disorderly conduct" and cause any damage to property could face riot charges, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and $15,000. The bill would create a new felony offense for disorderly conduct in a "place of public accommodation" that is committed during a "riot." It would also establish a felony offense for chalking or using graffiti on a public monument during an unruly protest: Current law penalizes purposely defacing or damaging any public monument or structure as a disorderly persons offense, subject to six months in jail. The bill would make the same offense a felony punishable by a year and a half in prison and $10,000, if committed during a "riot." The same bill was proposed as S652/A4610 in the 2024-2025 session. 

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Jan 2026.

Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference

S 2397 / A 298: New penalties for blocking traffic and other protest-adjacent conduct

Would make it a felony offense to purposely or recklessly obstruct a public road while engaging in "disorderly conduct" or a "riot," punishable by up to a year and a half in prison and a $10,000 fine. Both "disorderly conduct" and "riot" are defined broadly under New Jersey law: "Disorderly conduct," for instance, could include "recklessly creating a risk of public inconvenience" by causing a "hazardous condition," or using "unreasonably loud and offensively coarse" language in a public place. The bill would also broaden the definition of "riot," such that a group of five or more people who engage in "disorderly conduct" and cause any damage to property or persons could face riot charges, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and $15,000. Individuals who deface a monument during an unruly protest would also face heightened penalties under the bill: Current law penalizes defacing or damaging any public monument or structure as a disorderly persons offense, subject to six months in jail. The bill would make the same offense a felony punishable by a year and a half in prison and $10,000, if committed during a "riot." The bill would create new sanctions for protest organizers and patrons, as well: Under the bill, a person who "conspires with others as an organizer, supervisor, financier or manager to commit" one of a number of crimes during a protest would be guilty of "promotion of violent, disorderly assembly" and face enhanced criminal penalties. The same bill was introduced as S834/A3489 in the 2024-2025 session.

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Jan 2026.

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

S 1038 / A 1277: New penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

Would create a new disorderly persons offense "for a person, while congregating in a public place with other people who are also masked or disguised, to wear any mask or other facial obscurant or disguise with the purpose to conceal the person's identity while committing another crime or offense." The bill creates exemptions for activities related to Halloween, the weather, religious beliefs, medical purposes, or a public parade of an educational, religious, or historical character. However, it does not create an exemption for protests. As such, one engaged in identical conduct during a Halloween celebration and a protest would not face criminal liability under this proposed offense during the Halloween celebration, but could face criminal liability under this proposed offense during a demonstration. The penalty under the bill is up to 6 months in jail and a $1,000 fine. The same bill was introduced as S3578/A4804 in the 2024-2025 session.  

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Jan 2026.

Issue(s): Face Covering

SB 2296 / HB 7550: Heightened penalties for highway protests

Would create a new felony offense and civil cause of action that could cover some street protesters. Under the bill it would be a new felony if someone intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly “[s]tands, sits, kneels, or otherwise loiters” on a state or federal highway, if their conduct “could reasonably be construed as interfering with the lawful movement of traffic,” or if it caused “the interruption, obstruction, distraction, or delay of any motorist.” As defined, the offense could cover people whose sidewalk demonstration overflows onto one of Rhode Island’s many state highways—some of which are two-lane roads with stoplights and crosswalks—and even momentarily “distracts” or “delays” a passing driver. The bill prescribes penalties of at least one and up to three years in prison for a first offense; at least three and up to five years for a second offense; and at least five and up to 10 for a third offense. The bill further provides that any person may institute a civil action for violation of the offense.  

Status: pending

Introduced 23 Jan 2026.

Issue(s): Civil Liability, Traffic Interference