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.
45 states have
considered 355 bills
55 enacted 36 pending
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.
(See full text of bill here)Status: pending
Introduced 1 Aug 2025.
Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Riot
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.
(See full text of bill here)Status: pending
Introduced 22 Jul 2025.
Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Riot
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.
(See full text of bill here)Status: pending
Introduced 27 Jun 2025.
Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Police Response, Riot, Limit on Public Benefits
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.
(See full text of bill here)Status: pending
Introduced 17 Jun 2025.
Issue(s): Riot, Limit on Public Benefits
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.
(See full text of bill here)Status: pending
Introduced 13 Jun 2025.
Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Traffic Interference
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.
(See full text of bill here)Status: pending
Introduced 10 Jun 2025.
Issue(s): Traffic Interference
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.
(See full text of bill here)Status: pending
Introduced 10 Jun 2025.
Issue(s): Riot
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.
(See full text of bill here)Status: pending
Introduced 10 Jun 2025.
Issue(s): Riot
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.”
(See full text of bill here)Status: pending
Introduced 21 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Riot, Limit on Public Benefits
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.”
(See full text of bill here)Status: pending
Introduced 21 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Riot
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.
(See full text of bill here)Status: pending
Introduced 13 Aug 2025.
Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Riot
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.
(See full text of bill here)Status: pending
Introduced 17 Jun 2025.
Issue(s): Traffic Interference
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.
(See full text of bill here)Status: pending
Introduced 21 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Face Covering, Riot
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; Approved by Senate 7 May 2025
Issue(s): Civil Liability, Traffic Interference
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.
(See full text of bill here)Status: pending
Introduced 25 Mar 2025; Approved by Senate 27 March 2025; Approved by House 6 May 2025
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.
(See full text of bill here)Status: pending
Introduced 31 Jul 2025.
Issue(s): Riot, Trespass
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.
(See full text of bill here)Status: pending
Introduced 31 Jul 2025.
Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Riot
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."
(See full text of bill here)Status: pending
Introduced 28 Apr 2025.
Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure, Trespass
For more information about the Tracker, contact Elly Page at EPage@icnl.org.
