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

SB 443: Heightened penalties for protesters who block streets

Increases potential criminal penalties and introduces new civil liability for protesters who obstruct streets while demonstrating. Under preexisting Georgia law, it was a misdemeanor to “purposely or recklessly obstruct[]” any street in a way that makes it “impassable without unreasonable inconvenience.” Under the new law, such offense is a serious misdemeanor, publishable by a year in jail and $5,000. The law additionally makes anyone who commits the obstruction offense civilly liable for any damages that result from the offense. As such, peaceful demonstrators in a protest that blocks a street even briefly could face jail time and civil lawsuits. 

Status: enacted

Introduced 29 Jan 2026; Approved by Senate 3 March 2026; Approved by House 23 March 2026; Signed by Governor Kemp 11 May 2026

Issue(s): Civil Liability, Traffic Interference

HB 994: Heightened penalties for "riot"

Would make “riot” a felony rather than a misdemeanor and provide for a steep penalty. Georgia law defines “riot” to include just two people who do anything “in a violent and tumultuous manner,” as well as those who carry out an unlawful act of violence. As such, the law can be used to prosecute demonstrators who did not personally engage in any violence. The law also does not require that a person act with intent. Under the bill, a demonstrator who unintentionally acts in a way that authorities deem “violent and tumultuous” could face felony charges and up to 20 years in prison. The same bill was introduced as HB 505 in the 2023 session.

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 15 Jan 2026.

Issue(s): Riot

HB 489: Heightened penalties for masked protesters

Would significantly increase the penalty for any offense if committed by someone wearing a mask. Under the bill, someone who commits or attempts to commit an offense while wearing a mask or other device that conceals any portion of their face, is subject to an enhanced penalty of up to one year in jail and $2,500. As introudced, the bill contains no exemptions; it would apply to medical masks, religious head coverings, costumes, and face coverings worn for other lawful reasons. As a result, a peaceful demonstrator who covers their face—whether for expressive purposes, anonymity, or safety—and commits a low-level, nonviolent misdemeanor could face substantially steeper penalties. For instance, a costumed protester charged with misdemeanor “disturbing the peace” for making “loud or unusual noise” could face up to two years in jail.

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 16 Jan 2026.

Issue(s): Face Covering

SB 267: Reporting requirements for protest organizers and donors

Would require some organizations and donors involved in protest organizing to file detailed reports to the state. Under the bill, a person or entity that provides more than $500 to another to “induce, support, aid or otherwise encourage” them to engage in an “influence campaign,” would be required to file a report with Indiana’s Lobby Registration Commission. Reports filed with the Commission are generally available to the public. The bill defines “influence campaign” as an action to encourage the public to take action or contact a lawmaker or member of the executive branch, and specifically includes “providing compensation to a person to rally, gather, [or] demonstrate” on public property. As drafted, the bill would seemingly require, for instance, nonprofits with staff who organize public demonstrations to file reports with detailed information including personal data about individuals involved in the demonstration as well as its purpose. Supporters of the bill have said they want transparency for people who are “paid to protest.”

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 8 Jan 2026.

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders

HB 1233 / SB 73: New criminal penalties for masked protesters

Would create a new offense for attending a public assembly while wearing a mask and elevate disorderly conduct and rioting to felony offenses if committed by someone wearing a mask. The bill creates exemptions for masks worn for holidays, theater, religious purposes, medical purposes if prescribed by a doctor, and athletic events, but not protests. Under the bill, someone who knowingly or intentionally wears a mask “while present at a public assembly” would commit a Class C misdemeanor (punishable by up to 60 days in jail) for a first offense but a Class A misdemeanor (up to one year and $5,000) for second and subsequent offenses. As written, the offense could cover a demonstrator who chooses to wear a mask for expressive purposes, anonymity, or safety, among other non-exempt reasons, and who did not otherwise act unlawfully or have any intent to break a law. The offense would also seemingly cover bystanders “present” at a protest while masked. The bill would convert disorderly conduct and rioting—both broadly defined by Indiana law and typically misdemeanor offenses—into Level 6 felonies (up to two and a half years in prison and $10,000) if committed by someone in a mask. “Disorderly conduct,” for instance, covers someone who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally “makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop.” As such, someone who chooses to wear a mask while participating in a peaceful but noisy protest could face felony charges. The same bill was introduced as SB 286 in 2025. 

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 5 Jan 2026.

Issue(s): Face Covering, Riot

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.

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 8599 / AB 9335: Ban on protests near houses of worship and reproductive health clinics

Would create a new criminal offense that could cover peaceful demonstrators who come within 25 feet of houses of worship or reproductive health care facilities. Under the bill, a group of two or more demonstrators who fail to maintain 25 feet from covered facilities—which the bill defines to include driveways of and “any public way or sidewalk that touches” a house of worship or reproductive health clinic—would commit a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail. Subsequent offenses would be a felony subject to up to four years in prison. As written, the bill would criminalize demonstrators regardless of their knowledge or intent regarding the nearby house of worship or clinic, and regardless of the nature of their protest. Two demonstrators in a sidewalk protest unrelated to reproductive rights could face jail time under the bill even if they had no idea they were near a reproductive health clinic. The Supreme Court has struck down similar buffer zones as unduly restricting First Amendment expressive activity.

Status: pending

Introduced 3 Dec 2025.

Issue(s): Trespass

HB 3581: Heightened penalties for blocking traffic during a “riot”

Increases penalties under Oklahoma’s anti-rioting law that could cover nonviolent demonstrators. Preexisting Oklahoma law defines “riot” to include a group of three people who threaten to use force or violence, as well as those who actually use any force or violence. As such, demonstrators can be prosecuted for “riot” even if they didn’t engage in any violence. Before HB 3581 was enacted, it was a misdemeanor to “unlawfully obstruct the normal use” of any road while participating in a "riot"; under the new law, such obstruction is a Class D3 felony, punishable by up to two years in prison and $5,000. The law also expands criminal liability for demonstrators who “vandalize[]” or “deface[]” any building or other structure, making such act a felony punishable by up to four years in prison if committed in the course of a "riot." 

Status: enacted

Introduced 15 Jan 2026; Approved by House 11 March 2026; Approved by Senate 27 April 2026; Signed by Governor Stitt 12 May 2026

Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference

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

S 739: Broad new “riot” definition and criminal penalties for protest supporters and funders

Would create a broad new definition of “riot” and extend criminal liability to individuals and organizations that support “riots.” South Carolina law currently provides penalties for “being personally present” at, “instigating,” or “aiding” a “riot,” but does not define “riot” by statute. The bill would newly define “riot” broadly as a “tumultuous disturbance of the peace” by at least three people “with the intent mutually to assist each other against anyone who opposes them and to put their design into execution in a terrific and violent manner, whether the object is lawful or not.” As drafted, the definition does not require either actual violence or property damage; it covers a "tumultuous" protest with a lawful objective if at least three members intend to act “in a terrific and violent manner.” If enacted, it would be a crime to be “personally present” at such a protest, including as a legal observer or journalist. The bill would extend criminal and civil liability to a person or nonprofit organization that provides “funding” or “material support” with the intent of “instigating, aiding, or participating in” a “riot.” As such, if enacted, the bill could criminalize someone handling out water bottles or know-your-rights materials to demonstrators at protests covered by the broad “riot” definition. The bill would additionally authorize state law enforcement to “use dye or paint to identify a person who may be charged with instigating, aiding, or participating in” a “riot” if the Governor has declared a state of emergency.

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 13 Jan 2026.

Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Police Response, Riot, State of Emergency

HB 1124: New penalties for protests near houses of worship

Would create a new felony that could cover protesters who demonstrate near a place of worship. As introduced, the bill makes it a Class 5 felony for a person to be present within 1,000 feet of any place of worship with a certain intent, including intent to engage in “political intimidation” of those inside the place of worship. The bill does not define “political intimidation” and it is unclear how police would determine that someone was acting with the purpose of “political intimidation” or other intent. As written, an individual could be prosecuted for the offense, punishable by up to five years in prison and $10,000, even if they didn’t actually disrupt a religious service or intimidate anyone. The 1,000 foot perimeter—later reduced to 50 feet by amendment—could encompass traditional public fora such as public parks and sidewalks; the Supreme Court has struck down similar buffer zones as unduly restricting First Amendment expressive activity. The bill sponsor cited a recent protest inside a church in St. Paul, MN, as impetus for the bill.  

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 23 Jan 2026.

Issue(s): Trespass

SB 2222 / HB 2109: New civil liability for protest organizers and supporters

Establishes a new basis for civil lawsuits against protest organizers and supporters. Under the law, a claimant may seek damages from someone who compensates another person to participate in a protest, if the participant’s conduct satisfies the elements of certain crimes. The specified crimes include “disorderly conduct,” “obstructing a highway or passageway,” and “disrupting meetings,” among others, though the law does not require that the participant was ever convicted in order for civil liability to apply. The law defines “compensation” broadly to include not only salary or payment but any “valuable consideration,” and defines a “demonstration” as a public gathering of one or more people “protesting against something or expressing views on a political issue.” Under the law, groups whose employees engage in protests or advocacy as part of their work could face civil lawsuits, based on allegations that the employee was engaged in disorderly conduct (which can include making “unreasonable noise”), blocking a sidewalk, or disrupting public hearings or other government meetings.

Status: enacted

Introduced 2 Feb 2026; Approved by Senate 12 March 2026; Approved by House 26 March 2026; Signed by Governor Lee 13 April 2026

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

HB 331: New penalties for protesters who wear masks or block traffic

Creates a serious misdemeanor offense that can cover peaceful demonstrators who wear a mask. Under the law, it is a Class A misdemeanor to wear a mask or other disguise in public with intent to conceal one’s identity from government officials, while either committing any offense or congregating with other people known to be committing, or attempting to commit, any offense. As such, peaceful demonstrators who choose wear a mask to avoid government surveillance or retaliation for their political views, could face arrest and criminal charges. The law does not require that a masked demonstrator themselves commit or intend to commit any unlawful act. Wearing a mask while part of a demonstration where other participants commit or attempt to commit minor violations of state or local law, such as blocking a sidewalk or violating noise ordinances, could be covered. A Class A misdemeanor in Utah is punishable by up to one year in jail. The law also adds the offense of “aggravated disorderly conduct on a street or highway” as a predicate offense for Utah’s racketeering statute. As a result, the law creates potential criminal and civil racketeering liability for organizers and protesters involved in demonstrations on highways or major roads. As introduced, the law also created new felony offenses that could cover peaceful protesters who block traffic; these provisions were removed by amendment before the law was enacted.

Status: enacted

Introduced 22 Jan 2026; Approved by House 24 February 2026; Approved by Senate 5 March 2026; Signed by Governor Cox 24 March 2026

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