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.
Latest updates: Apr. 29, 2026 (Tennessee), Apr. 28, 2026 (New York, Oklahoma), Apr. 17, 2026 (Louisiana, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah)
23 entries matching in provided filters in 14 states and 1 federal. Clear all filters
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
return to map
US Federal
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.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 13 Jun 2025.
Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Traffic Interference
return to map
US Federal
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.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 10 Jun 2025.
Issue(s): Traffic Interference
return to map
US Federal
HR 1057: Penalties for protesters on interstate highways
Would create steep new penalties for protesters deemed to be “deliberately delaying traffic,” “standing or approaching a motor vehicle,” or “endangering the safe movement of a motor vehicle” on an interstate highway “with the intent to obstruct the free, convenient, and normal use of the interstate highway.” The new federal offense would be punishable by up to $10,000 and 15 years in prison—a far harsher penalty than is the case under many states' laws, which generally already criminalize walking or standing on the highway. The bill provides an exception for “any lawful activity” authorized by federal, state, or local law. However, it could still seemingly cover far more than “blocking” the interstate, including a peaceful protest on the shoulder of an interstate or a convoy-style, driving protest that slowed traffic. The sponsor of the bill made clear that it was in response to protesters. The same bill was introduced as HR 7349 in 2024.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 6 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): Traffic Interference
return to map
Alaska
HB 71 / SB 74: New penalties for protesting without a permit
Would introduce new criminal and civil penalties that could cover participants in a spontaneous protest or other demonstration without a permit. The bill creates a new felony offense that would cover someone who “knowingly… obstructs or blocks a public place.” While it includes exceptions for “obstruction” authorized by a permit or otherwise authorized by the law, the new offense would clearly cover unpermitted protests—particularly large protests in public plazas, parks, streets, sidewalks or other places that might “obstruct” the movement of nonparticipants. If the protest “substantially interferes” with someone’s access to a government building, or “interferes” with an emergency responder, the offense would be a Class C felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and $50,000. In all other cases it would be a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and $25,000. In addition to criminal penalties, the bill creates expansive civil liability for protesters who block public places. A person “whose passage is obstructed” could sue a protester for $10,000 if their rights were infringed, $50,000 if their property was damaged, and $100,000 if they were personally injured – in addition to attorney’s fees and costs. Under the bill, civil liability extends to anyone who “directly or indirectly, by words or action, aids, encourages, or authorizes the conduct,” including by “advising” another person to engage in the conduct or “conspiring” to engage in the conduct. It also extends to anyone outside the state of Alaska if they “knew or had reason to know” that their acts were likely to lead to the obstruction. A similar bill was introduced in 2024, though with lesser criminal penalties.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 27 Jan 2025.
Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Traffic Interference
return to map
Arizona
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.”
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 6 Jan 2026; Approved by House 9 March 2026
Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Riot, Terrorism, Traffic Interference
return to map
Georgia
SB 443: Heightened penalties for protesters who block streets and sidewalks
Would significantly increase potential criminal penalties and introduce new civil liability for protesters who block streets or sidewalks. Under current Georgia law, it is a misdemeanor to “purposely or recklessly obstruct[]” any street, sidewalk, or “public passage” in a way that makes it “impassable without unreasonable inconvenience.” As introduced, the bill makes such offense a serious misdemeanor, publishable by a year in jail and $5,000. If the offense “results in” any injury or property destruction, it is a felony punishable by at least five years in prison and $5,000, as well as subject to civil lawsuit. As written, the felony offense does not require that someone personally injure another or damage property, but that such damages “resulted” from their obstruction. As such, peaceful demonstrators in a protest that blocks a sidewalk could seemingly face felony charges and mandatory prison time if, for instance, someone in the group engages in property destruction.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 29 Jan 2026; Approved by Senate 3 March 2026; Approved by House 23 March 2026
Issue(s): Civil Liability, Traffic Interference
return to map
Illinois
HB 2357: New penalties for protests that block traffic
Would create a new felony offense for protests that block traffic on highways and other busy roadways for more than five minutes. Existing Illinois law already prohibits protests or other assemblies on roadways without a permit or other permission from law enforcement, and requires that such assemblies not obstruct pedestrian or car traffic “in an unreasonable manner;” violations are a Class A misdemeanor offense. Under the bill, blocking “an exceptionally busy public right-of-way” for more than five minutes in a way that prevents “or would prevent” passage of an emergency vehicle, is a Class 4 felony. As written, the felony offense applies regardless of whether an emergency vehicle was actually blocked, or whether the roadway was “exceptionally busy” at the time it was blocked. “Exceptionally busy public right-of-way” is defined as a public road that typically carries at least 24,000 cars daily. The bill would also newly preempt cities and counties from enforcing a more lenient rule related to protests and demonstrations on roadways. The same bill was introduced as HB 5819 during the 2023-2024 session.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 4 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): Traffic Interference
return to map
Michigan
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.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 17 Jun 2025; Approved by House 16 September 2025
Issue(s): Traffic Interference
return to map
Minnesota
SF 1501: Heightened penalties for protesters who block traffic
Would heighten penalties for protesters who intentionally “interfere with” or “disrupt” traffic that is entering, exiting, or on a freeway or a roadway on airport property. Under the bill, intentional traffic disruption on freeways or airport roadways would be a gross misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $3,000 fine. The relevant provisions are identical to HF 329 / SF 728.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 17 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): Traffic Interference
return to map
Minnesota
SF 1363: New penalties for pipeline protesters and supporters, and protesters who block traffic
Would create new civil and criminal liability for funders and supporters of protesters who peacefully demonstrate on pipeline or other utility property. Any person or entity that "recruits, trains, aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with" a person who trespasses onto a “critical public service facility, utility, or pipeline” would be civilly liable for any damages committed by the trespasser under the bill. They would also be guilty of a gross misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $3,000, if they fail to make a reasonable effort to prevent the violation. Additionally, the bill would make the person who trespasses onto the critical public service facility, utility, or pipeline strictly liable for civil damages. Similar provisions were introduced as SF 1493 in the 2023-2024 session. The bill would also make it a gross misdemeanor to obstruct traffic on a freeway or on a public road within airport property, with intent of obstructing or otherwise interfering with traffic. As written, the offense could cover protesters who even momentarily delayed cars on a freeway while demonstrating on the side of the freeway or on an overpass. Similar provisions were introduced as SF 1285/HF 1967 in the 2021-2022 session.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 13 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure, Traffic Interference, Trespass
return to map
Minnesota
HF 329 / SF 728: Heightened penalties for protesters who block traffic
Would heighten penalties for protesters who intentionally “interfere with” or “disrupt” traffic that is entering, exiting, or on a freeway or a roadway on airport property. Under the bill, intentional traffic disruption on freeways or airport roadways would be a gross misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $3,000 fine. A nearly identical bill was proposed as HF 1967 / SF 1285, introduced in 2021.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 13 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): Traffic Interference
return to map
Minnesota
HF 367 / SF 180: New civil liability for street protesters
Would allow third parties or the government to sue protesters if they interfere with traffic on certain public roads. Under the bill, someone who intentionally “interferes with” or “obstructs” passage on any “public highway” would be civilly liable for damages and attorneys fees. Any injured person, private entity, or state or local government could bring such a lawsuit, though the bill provides that the government cannot bring both a civil suit and criminal charges for the same conduct. “Highways” in Minnesota include many two-lane roads with stop signs and stoplights. As such, protesters whose demonstration paused or delayed traffic on certain roads could face costly litigation by, for instance, a company that claimed it was “damaged” by the delay.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 13 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): Traffic Interference
return to map
Missouri
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."
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 7 Jan 2026.
Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Driver Immunity, Face Covering, Traffic Interference
return to map
New Jersey
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.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 13 Jan 2026.
Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Riot, Traffic Interference, State Liability, Stand Your Ground
return to map
New Jersey
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.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 13 Jan 2026.
Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference
return to map
New Jersey
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.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 13 Jan 2026.
Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Riot, Traffic Interference
return to map
New York
S 534 / A 11086: New penalties for protesters who block traffic
Would create a new criminal offense that could cover unpermitted protests and demonstrations on streets, sidewalks, or near public buildings. According to the bill, a person participating in a protest without a permit who “obstructs” cars or pedestrians, or prevents people from entering or exiting buildings, commits a new offense of “aggravated disorderly conduct” if they intend “to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm” or are “recklessly creating a risk thereof.” The offense would be a class A misdemeanor, punishable by one year in jail and $1,000. As written, an individual in a spontaneous protest that blocks a sidewalk, “recklessly creating a risk” of inconveniencing people, would be guilty of the offense. The bill would also add the offense to the underlying offenses that can be charged as a hate crime under New York law, and allow individuals arrested for the offense to be held for bail. The same bill was introduced as S 8646 in 2024.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 8 Jan 2025.
Issue(s): Traffic Interference
return to map
North Carolina
SB 484: Enabling companies and other employers to sue protesters
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
return to map
Oklahoma
HB 3581: Heightened penalties for blocking traffic, wearing a mask, or engaging in vandalism during a “riot”
Would increase penalties under Oklahoma’s anti-rioting law that could cover nonviolent demonstrators. 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. Under current law, it is a misdemeanor to “unlawfully obstruct the normal use” of any road while participating in a riot; the bill would make such obstruction a Class D3 felony, punishable by up to two years in prison and $5,000. Current law also makes it a felony to participate in a “riot” while “disguised.” The bill would amend this offense to cover anyone who wears a “mask, hood, covering, or disguise” “without lawful excuse” and “for the purpose of concealing his or her identity.” The bill does not specify what would constitute a “lawful excuse;” it is unclear whether, for instance, masks worn to avoid retaliation for political speech would be exempt. The bill would also expand criminal liability for demonstrators who “vandalize[]” or “deface[]” government-owned property, making such act a felony punishable by at least two and up to 10 years in prison.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 15 Jan 2026; Approved by House 11 March 2026; Approved by Senate 27 April 2026
Issue(s): Face Covering, Riot, Traffic Interference
return to map
Oregon
HB 2534: Felony penalties for protesters who impede traffic
Would expand the definition of “riot” such that the felony offense could cover demonstrators who peacefully protest in the street. Oregon law defines “riot” as engaging in “tumultuous and violent conduct” with a group of five or more other people in a way that “intentionally or recklessly creates a grave risk of causing public alarm.” The offense is a Class C felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and $125,000. The bill would define “tumultuous and violent conduct” to include “imped[ing] traffic,” creating a “traffic hazard,” or “block[ing] the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.” As such, a large sidewalk protest that even momentarily overflowed onto a street in a way that could be considered a “traffic hazard” could be deemed a “riot,” and demonstrators could face felony penalties regardless of whether their conduct was “tumultuous” or “violent.”
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 13 Jan 2025.
Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference
return to map
Rhode Island
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.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 23 Jan 2026.
Issue(s): Civil Liability, Traffic Interference
return to map
Washington
HB 1323: New penalties for participants and organizers of highway protests
Would create steep new penalties for people who organize or participate in protests that block certain public roads. The bill would create a new offense of “obstructing highways,” a gross misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail, for anyone in a group of four or more people who “intentionally obstructs” a "state highway" by walking, standing, or sitting in a way that unlawfully “blocks” cars’ ability to pass. ("State highways" in Washington include two-lane roads with stop signs and stoplights.) The bill would also create a felony offense, punishable by up to five years in prison and at least $5,000, for any person to be a “leader or organizer” of a group that engage in “obstructing highways.” Notably, the felony offense does not require that a “leader or organizer” themselves obstruct traffic, or intend or know that the group will obstruct traffic; nor is “leader or organizer” defined. As such, the felony offense would seemingly cover someone who participates in planning or facilitating in any way a protest where some individuals end up demonstrating on a state highway and even momentarily blocking traffic. For either offense, the bill additionally imposes a mandatory minimum sentence of 60 days in jail and a $6,125 fine for any individual who has previously been convicted of other offenses including “disorderly conduct,” “failure to disperse,” “or similar criminal behavior.”
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 16 Jan 2025.
Issue(s): Traffic Interference
return to map
