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: May. 30, 2025 (Texas), May. 12, 2025 (Oklahoma, Tennessee), May. 9, 2025 (Arizona, New Jersey, North Carolina)
27 entries matching in provided filters in 9 states and 1 federal. Clear all filters
US Federal
HR 2272: Blocking financial aid to students who commit a "riot"-related offense
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
return to map
US Federal
S 937: Barring student protesters from federal loans and loan forgiveness
Would exclude student protesters from federal financial aid and loan forgiveness if they commit any crime at a campus protest. The bill would cover someone convicted of “any offense” under “any Federal or State law” that is “related to the individual’s conduct at and during the course of a protest” at a college or university. As such, a student convicted of even a nonviolent, state law misdemeanor at a campus protest, such as failing to disperse, would be deemed ineligible for federal student loans; they would also be ineligible for having existing federal loans forgiven, cancelled, waived or modified. The sponsor of the bill said it was a response to pro-Palestine protests at colleges and universities.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 11 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Limit on Public Benefits
return to map
US Federal
HR 9102: Barring Student Protesters from Federal Student Loans
Would ban “a student who is convicted of a hate crime under State of Federal law for conduct that occurred during a protest at an institution of higher education that disrupts the normal campus functions” from receiving a federal student loan or participating in a federal student loan forgiveness program. The bill defines "hate crime" to include a federal hate crime under Section 18 U.SC. 249, but does not define other federal or state hate crimes that would also be covered. As such, if a state enacted a hate crime law that included nonviolent conduct, a conviction under that state law could trigger the ban on federal student loan assistance under the bill.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: defeated / expired
Introduced 23 Jul 2024.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Limit on Public Benefits
return to map
US Federal
HR 8883: Potential penalties for universities based on protest policies
Would make federal accreditation of colleges and universities—and thus their access to federal funds—contingent on the institution’s policies on responding to protests. Under the “No Tax Dollars for College Encampments Act of 2024,” universities would have to regularly disclose how they respond to campus “incidents of civil disturbance,” defined to include “a demonstration, riot, or strike,” and their accreditation would be linked to such policies and practices. The bill sponsor cited pro-Palestine encampments on university campuses and other campus demonstrations as motivation for the bill.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: defeated / expired
Introduced 28 Jun 2024.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Riot, Limit on Public Benefits
return to map
US Federal
HR 8823: Withholding federal funds from states that do not punish street protesters
Would enable the federal government to withhold highway funding from states that allow protests on highways and other public roads. The bill would direct the Secretary of Transportation to withhold 10 percent of a state’s allocated federal highway funds each year, unless the Secretary could certify that the state had made “reasonable efforts” to prohibit individuals from “knowingly and recklessly obstructing” transportation on Federal-aid highways, which make up roughly one-quarter of all public roads in the U.S. Under the bill, the Secretary would have sole and unbounded discretion to make such a certification. The bill sponsor indicated that the bill is “a direct response to the increasing trend of unlawful traffic-obstructing protests.”
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: defeated / expired
Introduced 25 Jun 2024.
Issue(s): Traffic Interference, Limit on Public Benefits
return to map
US Federal
HR 8468: BARRING STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR CAMPUS PROTESTERS
Would disqualify certain campus protesters from federal student loan forgiveness programs. Under the bill, a student or faculty member who is expelled or fired from a higher education institution for a protest-related reason is not eligible for any loan forgiveness program under federal law. Covered reasons for expulsion or firing comprise “creating a public disturbance,” “disorderly conduct,” “trespassing,” “hate crime,” and violating provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 related to discrimination. The bill’s sponsor cited pro-Palestine demonstrations on college campuses as motivation for the legislation.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: defeated / expired
Introduced 21 May 2024.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Trespass, Limit on Public Benefits
return to map
US Federal
S 4295: Barring federal funds for universities that don’t clear protest camps
Would bar federal funding for colleges and universities that fail to remove prolonged protest encampments. Under the “Encampments or Endowments Act,” if the Secretary of Education determined that a university permitted a protest encampment on campus for more than seven days, and camp participants had “attempted to interfere with a core function of the institution of higher education” or “obstructed the ingress or egress of students,” then the university would be ineligible to receive federal financial assistance for five years. The barred assistance would include institutional as well as student aid such as Pell grants and federal loans. Disqualified schools would have to provide grant-based aid to students to make up for the federal aid they would have otherwise received, and if they failed to do so, they would have to pay a tax equal to 50 percent of their endowment’s assets. The sponsor cited pro-Palestine protests on college campuses as the motivation for the bill.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: defeated / expired
Introduced 9 May 2024.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Camping, Limit on Public Benefits
return to map
US Federal
S 4302: Barring federal financial aid for students convicted of protest-related offenses
Would prohibit federal financial aid for students who are convicted of protest-related offenses while participating in a campus protest. The prohibition on federal financial aid under the “No Higher education Assistance for Mobs of Antisemitic and terrorist Sympathizing Students (No HAMAS) Act" would apply to students who are convicted under federal or state law of trespassing, unlawful assembly, rioting, or damaging property while protesting at a college or university. Such students would be ineligible for any federal grant, loan, or work study assistance. The sponsor and cosponsors of the bill have pointed to pro-Palestine protests on college and university campuses as their motivation, however the legislation could cover students who are convicted of nonviolent offenses such as trespass while demonstrating for any cause while on campus.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: defeated / expired
Introduced 9 May 2024.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Riot, Trespass, Limit on Public Benefits
return to map
US Federal
S 4240 / HR 8242: Barring student loan forgiveness for campus protesters
Would bar federal student loan forgiveness for individuals convicted of protest-related offenses on a college or university campus. The “No Bailouts for Campus Criminals Act” would exclude an individual from the federal government’s forgiveness, cancellation, or modification of a student loan if they are convicted of “any offense” under federal or state law “related to” the individual’s conduct at a protest occurring at an institution of higher education. As such, if adopted, individuals convicted of even minor, nonviolent state law offenses such as trespass or unlawful assembly would be ineligible for loan forgiveness. Congressional sponsors of the bill cited pro-Palestine protests on college campuses as impetus for the legislation.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: defeated / expired
Introduced 2 May 2024.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Limit on Public Benefits
return to map
US Federal
HR 6653: Barring small business aid to individuals convicted of "riot" offenses
Would bar individuals convicted of “riot” offenses from receiving small business assistance from the federal government. The bill provides that a person convicted of a felony for actions during or “in connection with” a riot is prohibited from participating in any program run by the Small Business Administration, if the riot resulted in the destruction of a small business. The definition of “riot” under federal law is broad, requiring only a “public disturbance” where one individual in a group commits violence. An individual can be convicted of participating or inciting a “riot” based on conduct that was neither violent nor destructive. Under the bill, individuals convicted of such offenses would become ineligible for support such as disaster relief loans, loans to avert hardship caused by COVID-19, and other small business assistance.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: defeated / expired
Introduced 9 Feb 2022.
Issue(s): Riot, Limit on Public Benefits
return to map
US Federal
HR 289: Stripping Pandemic Aid from Individuals Convicted of "Protest-Related" Federal Crimes
Would withdraw COVID-19 unemployment benefits from and impose new costs on anyone convicted of a federal offense related to the individual's conduct at and during a protest. Such a person would be ineligible for federal unemployment aid under the CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9023) or any other Federal supplemental unemployment compensation during the COVID-19 public health emergency. If federal agents were involved in policing the protest at issue, the person who was convicted of a related federal offense would also have to pay the cost of the agents' policing activity, as determined by the court. Federal offenses include both violations of federal law, and violations of state law that occur on federal property. As such, the bill's withdrawal of benefits and imposition of new costs could apply to, e.g., a peaceful protester convicted of misdemeanor trespass for refusing to leave a demonstration on the steps of a federal courthouse or a sit-in at a congressional office. This bill is nearly identical to HB 8117 introduced in 2020. (See full text of bill here)
Status: defeated / expired
Introduced 13 Jan 2021.
Issue(s): Security Costs, Limit on Public Benefits
return to map
US Federal
HR 8117: Stripping Pandemic Aid from Individuals Convicted of "Protest-Related" Federal Crimes
Would withdraw COVID-19 unemployment benefits from and impose new costs on anyone convicted of a federal offense related to the individual's conduct at and during a protest. Such a person would be ineligible for federal unemployment aid under the CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9023) or any other Federal supplemental unemployment compensation during the COVID-19 public health emergency. If federal agents were involved in policing the protest at issue, the person who was convicted of a related federal offense would also have to pay the cost of the agents' policing activity, as determined by the court. Federal offenses include both violations of federal law, and violations of state law that occur on federal property. As such, the bill's withdrawal of benefits and imposition of new costs could apply to, e.g., a peaceful protester convicted of misdemeanor trespass for refusing to leave a demonstration on the steps of a federal courthouse or a sit-in at a congressional office. (See full text of bill here)
Status: defeated / expired
Introduced 28 Aug 2020.
Issue(s): Security Costs, Limit on Public Benefits
return to map
Arizona
HB 2485: New Penalties for "Violent Or Disorderly Assembly" and for Protesters Who Block Traffic or "Deface" Monuments
Would create a broad new felony offense, "violent or disorderly assembly," for any person who joins a group of six or more people knowing that the group has one of a number of objectives; these include creating "an immediate danger" of property damage or personal injury; "substantially obstructing" government services; or "disturbing any person in the enjoyment of a legal right" if one person in the group then commits an "overt act" that furthers any of those objectives. The broad definition only requires action by one person in a protest; individuals could be charged with "violent or disorderly assembly" without doing anything other than gathering. The new offense is a Class 6 felony, punishable by one year in prison. The bill instates a mandatory, 12-hour detention for anyone arrested for the "violent or disorderly assembly," and requires that anyone convicted of the offense be barred from receiving any public benefits "including welfare or scholarships" or employment by a state or local entity. The bill makes "obstructing" a street or highway a Class 6 felony if it occurs while committing "violent or disorderly assembly." The bill would similarly heighten the penalty for unintentional property damage occurring during a protest, providing that "reckless" damage to property in the amount of $250-$1,000 is a Class 6 felony if it occurs while committing "violent or disorderly assembly." Using fireworks, "defacing" a monument or other public memorial, or being "indecent" or "offensive to the senses," are all elevated to a Class 6 felony if done while committing "violent or disorderly assembly." The bill would also add "violent or disorderly assembly" to the underlying crimes for Arizona's anti-racketeering statute. As a result, an participating in or being near a protest that is deemed a "violent or disorderly assembly" could lead to prosecution on felony racketeering charges. (See full text of bill here)
Status: defeated / expired
Introduced 22 Jan 2021.
Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Traffic Interference, Limit on Public Benefits
return to map
Arizona
HB 2309: New penalties for "violent or disorderly assembly" and for protesters who block traffic or "deface" monuments
Would create a new felony offense, "violent or disorderly assembly," for any person who causes any property damage or personal injury with a group of seven other people, with the intent to engage in a "riot" or an "unlawful assembly." The new offense is a Class 6 felony, punishable by one year in jail. The bill instates a mandatory, 12-hour detention for anyone arrested for the "violent or disorderly assembly," and requires that anyone convicted of the offense be barred from obtaining public benefits or employment by a state or local entity. The bill would heighten the penalty for protesters who "recklessly interfere" with traffic on any "public thoroughfare," or who, after receiving a warning, intentionally interfere with and prevent access to a government meeting or political campaign event. The bill provides that such interference is a Class 6 felony if it occurs while committing "violent or disorderly assembly." The bill would similarly heighten the penalty for unintentional property damage occurring during a protest, providing that "reckless" damage to property in the amount of $250-$1,000 is a Class 6 felony if it occurs while committing "violent or disorderly assembly." Likewise, using fireworks, or "defacing" a monument or other public memorial are both elevated to a Class 6 felony if done while committing "violent or disorderly assembly." (See full text of bill here)
Status: defeated / expired
Introduced 15 Jan 2021; Approved by House 3 March 2021
Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference, Limit on Public Benefits
return to map
Georgia
SB 171: Ban on spontaneous protests, heightened protest penalties, and an affirmative defense for drivers who hit protesters
Would prohibit protests on public property that have not received a permit, seemingly banning all spontaneous demonstrations. The bill requires local governments to create a permitting scheme for any protest, demonstration, or other assembly on public property. Street protests could face steep penalties under the bill, which makes it a felony to obstruct any street or highway as part of an "unlawful assembly" and refuse a police order to disperse. The offense would be punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. The bill also creates an affirmative defense for someone who injures or kills a protester who was obstructing traffic as part of an “unlawful assembly.” The defendant would need to establish that they were attempting to flee the assembly under the “reasonable belief” that they had to flee to avoid an “imminent attack.” The bill expands the state’s “racketeering” law to include committing, attempting to commit, or soliciting someone else to commit “any crime” “involving unlawful assemblies,” which could sweep up organizations that are involved in supporting or organizing protests. Racketeering is a felony punishable by up to 20 years in jail and a fine of up to $25,000. The bill creates a new felony offense of "defacing, defiling, or abusing contemptuously" a state-owned or maintained monument or other structure during an "unlawful assembly." The offense, which is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine, could seemingly apply to a protester who chalked a sidewalk near a monument during an assembly that was deemed to be "unlawful." The bill makes the governing authorities of a county or municipality civilly liable if they are “grossly negligent by allowing the commission of violence against persons and property” during an assembly. The bill also makes local authorities civilly liable for interfering with the ability of law enforcement agencies to provide “reasonable law enforcement” protection during an “unlawful assembly” or “riot.” These provisions make it more likely that cities and counties will aggressively police constitutionally-protected assemblies out of fear they might otherwise face liability if any property damage occurs. As introduced, the bill expanded the definition of "unlawful assembly" to include "two or more persons who harass or intimidate another person within any public accommodation"; this was later replaced by "two or more persons who convey any threat that is severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and specifically directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action." The original bill also barred anyone convicted of "unlawful assembly" from receiving state or local employment benefits; these provisions were removed by amendment.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: defeated / expired
Introduced 11 Feb 2021; Approved by Senate 15 March 2022
Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Security Costs, Riot, State Liability, Limit on Public Benefits
return to map
Indiana
SB 34: New penalties for unpermitted protests that block traffic, unlawful assemblies, and "riot" offenses
Would increase the penalty for obstructing pedestrian or vehicular traffic to a level 5 felony, punishable by up to six years in prison, if committed by "a person participating in a protest or demonstration" that is not authorized by a permit. The bill also newly penalizes as a class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to 1 year in jail, participants in an unlawful assembly in a place of public accommodation who make unreasonable noise and continue to do so after being asked to stop, or who disrupt a lawful gathering of persons. The bill enables the government to seize any "real or personal property" that is used to finance or facilitate a crime "including minor violations" committed by a person who is part of an unlawful assembly. It strips immunity from government officials who "fail to enforce the law in connection with an unlawful assembly, if the failure to enforce the law constitutes gross negligence," opening up government officials to civil suits if they do not aggressively police protests. The bill bans a person convicted of rioting from holding state government employment, including elected office, and bars a person convicted of rioting from receiving a broad range of state and local benefits, including healthcare and educational benefits. Rioting in Indiana is defined broadly as a person who, as part of an unlawful assembly, recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally engages in "tumultuous" conduct. (See full text of bill here)
Status: defeated / expired
Introduced 4 Jan 2021.
Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference, State Liability, Limit on Public Benefits
return to map
Kentucky
SB 211: Mandatory minimum penalties for numerous offenses associated with protests, and a ban on "camping" on state property
Would create mandatory penalties for participation in a "riot" and "incitement to riot," including mandatory minimum prison sentences without parole or probation, a fine of $500-$5,000, and disqualification from public assistance benefits for 6 months to a year. Kentucky law broadly defines "riot" as a group of five or more people who disturb the public by "tumultuous and violent conduct" that creates "grave danger" of property damage or injury or "substantially obstructs law enforcement or other government function." The bill intensifies penalties for blocking traffic if it takes place during a "riot," providing that intentionally making a road or highway impassable or "prevent[ing] law enforcement officers from accessing an assembly, protest, demonstration, or other gathering" is a Class D felony if it occurs during a "riot;" the bill requires as punishment a minimum mandatory sentence of 4 years in prison, a $5,000 fine, and disqualification from public benefits for one year. The bill newly criminalizes using "offensive or derisive words" to "taunt[]" or "insult[]" a law enforcement officer. The bill also provides heightened penalties and mandatory minimum sentences for the offenses of resisting arrest, obstructing emergency responders, and failure to disperse, if they are committed during a "riot." The bill bars 24-hour protests on certain state property, by making it a Class A misdemeanor to "camp" on state property that is not specifically designated for camping. "Camping" is defined as conduct between 10pm and 7am that includes laying down a blanket or using a piece of furniture. If "camping" occurs during a "riot," the bill requires a mandatory minimum sentence of 6 months in jail without parole or probation, a $500 fine, and disqualification from public benefits for 6 months. The second or subsequent offense is a Class D felony, subject to a minimum sentence of 4 years in prison, a $5,000 fine, and disqualification from public benefits for one year. The bill prohibits granting bail for at least 48 hours to anyone arrested of offenses including camping on state property, criminal mischief, obstructing an emergency responder, riot, and incitement to riot. The bill establishes a new legal justification for using lethal force during protests, creating a presumption that a person who uses force in self-defense had a "reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm" if they acted during a "riot." Finally, the bill would allow civil lawsuits against the government for failure to prevent damage to property, if authorities had "notice or good reason to believe" that a "riot" or "tumultuous assemblage" was going to take place and were "grossly negligent" in their response. If enacted, these provisions could encourage municipal and other local governments to adopt overly aggressive law enforcement responses to protests in order to avoid costly lawsuits. (See full text of bill here)
Status: defeated / expired
Introduced 9 Feb 2021; Approved by Senate 11 March 2021; Expired with end of 2021 session
Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference, Camping, State Liability, Stand Your Ground, Limit on Public Benefits
return to map
Michigan
HB 6269: Revoking Public Benefits of those Charged during "Civil Unrest"
Would revoke public assistance benefits for one year for someone who is "charged with looting, vandalism, or a violent crime in relation to or stemming from civil unrest." "Civil unrest" is defined to include simply unlawfully blocking a sidewalk or roadway or an unlawful assembly. "Violent crime" is defined broadly to include "intimidation, threat, or coercion." As such, a nonviolent protester who was charged, but not convicted, of making a threat or being intimidating at a protest could lose their public assistance, including medical and food assistance from the state. The bill further requires that if the person has their child with them when they are charged with a covered crime that the individual will be reported to child protective services. (See full text of bill here)
Status: defeated / expired
Introduced 29 Sep 2020.
Issue(s): Riot, Limit on Public Benefits
return to map
Minnesota
SF 708: BARRING PUBLIC BENEFITS FOR PROTEST-RELATED OFFENSES
Would broadly disqualify a person convicted of an offense during a protest from receiving public assistance. Any "offense related to the person's illegal conduct at a protest, demonstration, rally, civil unrest, or march" would disqualify the person from a range of benefits, including food assistance, education loans and grants, and unemployment assistance. Under the bill, a person convicted of even a misdemeanor that is deemed somehow "related" to their participation in a peaceful protest could face permanent disqualification from such benefits. The same bill was introduced as SF 935 in 2023.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 27 Jan 2025.
Issue(s): Limit on Public Benefits
return to map
Minnesota
SF 935: BARRING PUBLIC BENEFITS FOR PROTEST-RELATED OFFENSES
Would broadly disqualify a person convicted of an offense during a protest from receiving public assistance. Any "offense related to the person's illegal conduct at a protest, demonstration, rally, civil unrest, or march" would disqualify the person from a range of benefits, including food assistance, education loans and grants, and unemployment assistance. Under the bill, a person convicted of even a misdemeanor that is deemed somehow "related" to their participation in a peaceful protest could face permanent disqualification from such benefits. Nearly identical text was introduced as HF 466/SF 2381 in 2021.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: defeated / expired
Introduced 30 Jan 2023.
Issue(s): Limit on Public Benefits
return to map
Minnesota
HF 466 / SF 2381: Barring public benefits for protest-related offenses
Would broadly disqualify a person convicted of an offense during a protest from receiving public assistance. Any "offense related to the person's illegal conduct at a protest, demonstration, rally, civil unrest, or march" would disqualify the person from a range of benefits, including food assistance, education loans and grants, and unemployment assistance. Under the bill, a person convicted of even a misdemeanor that is deemed somehow "related" to their participation in a peaceful protest could face permanent disqualification from such benefits. (See full text of bill here)
Status: defeated / expired
Introduced 28 Jan 2021.
Issue(s): Limit on Public Benefits
return to map
Mississippi
HB 34: NEW PENALTIES FOR PROTESTORS WHO INTERFERE WITH TRAFFIC AND A LEGAL SHIELD FOR DRIVERS AND OTHERS WHO INJURE OR KILL PROTESTERS
Would create a vaguely defined new felony offense, "violent or disorderly assembly" that could cover peaceful protesters. The offense is defined as conduct by seven or more assembled people that creates an "immediate danger of damage to property" or personal injury, or that "substantially obstructs law enforcement or other governmental functions or services." The offense would be punishable by up to 3 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. The vagueness of the definition would allow authorities broad discretion to determine what constitutes, for instance, "creat[ing] an immediate danger" of property damage or injury. The bill includes new penalties for protests that interfere with traffic on roads and sidewalks, including a felony offense for "interfering with the regular flow of vehicular traffic" during a "violent or disorderly assembly." Under the bill, a driver who injures or kills someone who "obstructs or interferes with" traffic during an unpermitted protest or a "violent or disorderly assembly" is not criminally or civilly liable, as long as the driver did not do so "intentionally." The bill strips unemployment assistance from any person who is convicted of or pleads guilty or nolo contendere to a number of protest-related offenses, including "violent or disorderly assembly," and requires that government employees found guilty of violating any of the bill's provisions be fired from their positions. The bill precludes civil lawsuits against the state by anyone convicted of "unlawfully participating in a riot, unlawful assembly, public demonstration, mob violence, or civil disobedience," if the claim arises out of that conduct. Further, the bill creates a new civil right of action against local governments by any "victim" of "violent or unlawful assembly" or other protest-related offenses, if the local government "failed or was grossly negligent" in policing a riot or "violent or disorderly assembly" - provisions that, if enacted, could encourage municipal and other local governments to adopt overly aggressive law enforcement responses to protests in order to avoid lawsuits. The bill would newly add "violent or disorderly assembly" to the underlying crimes that can be prosecuted for "racketeering activity" under Mississippi's RICO statute, such that an organization or individual found to have "conspired" with individuals to engage in a protest that is deemed a "violent or disorderly assembly" could be prosecuted under RICO and subject to felony penalties. Finally, the bill would amend Mississippi's law on "justifiable homicide," creating a new legal justification for anyone who uses deadly force to "necessarily" defend their business "where there is looting, rioting" or other offenses created under the bill, including the defacing of public property. The text was first introduced as HB 83 in the 2021 session. (See full text of bill here)
Status: defeated / expired
Introduced 3 Jan 2023.
Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Driver Immunity, Riot, Traffic Interference, State Liability, Limit on Public Benefits
return to map
Mississippi
HB 24 / HB 613: NEW PENALTIES FOR PROTESTORS WHO INTERFERE WITH TRAFFIC AND A LEGAL SHIELD FOR DRIVERS AND OTHERS WHO INJURE OR KILL PROTESTERS
Would create a vaguely defined new felony offense, "violent or disorderly assembly" that could cover peaceful protesters. The offense is defined as conduct by seven or more assembled people that creates an "immediate danger of damage to property" or personal injury, or that "substantially obstructs law enforcement or other governmental functions or services." The offense would be punishable by up to 3 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. The vagueness of the definition would allow authorities broad discretion to determine what constitutes, for instance, "creat[ing] an immediate danger" of property damage or injury. The bill includes new penalties for protests that interfere with traffic on roads and sidewalks, including a felony offense for "interfering with the regular flow of vehicular traffic" during a "violent or disorderly assembly." Under the bill, a driver who injures or kills someone who "obstructs or interferes with" traffic during an unpermitted protest or a "violent or disorderly assembly" is not criminally or civilly liable, as long as the driver did not do so "intentionally." The bill strips unemployment assistance from any person who is convicted of or pleads guilty or nolo contendere to a number of protest-related offenses, including "violent or disorderly assembly," and requires that government employees found guilty of violating any of the bill's provisions be fired from their positions. The bill precludes civil lawsuits against the state by anyone convicted of "unlawfully participating in a riot, unlawful assembly, public demonstration, mob violence, or civil disobedience," if the claim arises out of that conduct. Further, the bill creates a new civil right of action against local governments by any "victim" of "violent or unlawful assembly" or other protest-related offenses, if the local government "failed or was grossly negligent" in policing a riot or "violent or disorderly assembly" - provisions that, if enacted, could encourage municipal and other local governments to adopt overly aggressive law enforcement responses to protests in order to avoid lawsuits. The bill would newly add "violent or disorderly assembly" to the underlying crimes that can be prosecuted for "racketeering activity" under Mississippi's RICO statute, such that an organization or individual found to have "conspired" with individuals to engage in a protest that is deemed a "violent or disorderly assembly" could be prosecuted under RICO, and subject to felony penalties. Finally, the bill would amend Mississippi's law on "justifiable homicide," creating a new legal justification for anyone who uses deadly force to "necessarily" defend their business "where there is looting, rioting" or other offenses created under the bill, including the defacing of public property. Identical language was introduced by another House member as HB 613. The text was first introduced as HB 83 in the 2021 session. (See full text of bill here)
Status: defeated / expired
Introduced 4 Jan 2022; Died in committee
Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Driver Immunity, Riot, Traffic Interference, State Liability, Limit on Public Benefits
return to map
Mississippi
SB 2374: New penalties for protest organizers and protestors who fail to disperse, interfere with traffic, or "deface" monuments, and a legal shield for drivers who hit people at protests
Would create a vaguely defined new felony offense, "violent or disorderly assembly," that could cover peaceful protesters. The offense is defined as either a) a group of 10 or more people who refuse to heed a lawful order to disperse; or b) a group of 10 or more people who create an "mmediate danger of damage to property" or personal injury, who "obstruct" law enforcement or other government services, and who "disturbs any person in the enjoyment of a legal right." Anyone who participates in, "incites," "organizes, promotes, encourages," "commits any act in furtherance of," or intentionally "aids or abets any person in inciting or participating in" a "violent or disorderly assembly" is guilty of a felony, punishable by up to 2 years in prison. The breadth and vagueness of the offence could cover, for instance, someone on social media whose post is deemed to have "encouraged" a crowd to stay and protest despite law enforcement's order to disperse. The bill includes new penalties for protests that interfere with traffic on roads and highways, including up to one year in jail for anyone who "maliciously" obstructs the "free, convenient, and normal use" of a street or highway during a protest that was not authorized by a permit, or a protest that was deemed a "violent or disorderly assembly." The bill would shield a driver who unintentionally injured or killed someone while trying to "escape a mob" during an unpermitted protest or a "violent or disorderly assembly." If enacted, those provisions would allow a driver to evade civil damages and criminal penalties for hitting and even killing a protester, as long as the injury or death was "unintended." The bill creates a new felony offense, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for anyone who "defaces" or "vandalizes" a monument during a "violent or disorderly assembly." The bill creates another offense, punishable by up to one year in jail, for anyone who "harasses" or "intimidate[s]" another person at a public accommodation during a "violent or disorderly assembly." The bill strips unemployment assistance from anyone convicted of the offenses described above; anyone convicted of the above offenses is also barred from holding state or local government employment. The bill would newly allow claims against local government entities and officials for the failure to protect individuals from injury or property damage caused by a riot or "violent or disorderly assembly," if the failure constitutes "gross negligence"; provisions that, if enacted, could encourage municipal and other local governments to adopt overly aggressive law enforcement responses to protests in order to avoid lawsuits. Finally, the bill would newly add "violent or disorderly assembly" and all related offenses described above to the crimes that can be prosecuted for "racketeering activity" under Mississippi's RICO statute. As a result, an organization or individual found to have "conspired" with individuals to engage in or encourage a protest that is deemed a "violent or disorderly assembly" could be prosecuted under RICO, and subject to felony penalties. (See full text of bill here)
Status: defeated / expired
Introduced 15 Jan 2021.
Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Driver Immunity, Riot, Traffic Interference, State Liability, Limit on Public Benefits
return to map
Mississippi
HB 83: New penalties for protestors who interfere with traffic and a legal shield for drivers and others who injure or kill protesters
Would create a vaguely defined new felony offense, "violent or disorderly assembly" that could cover peaceful protesters. The offense is defined as conduct by seven or more assembled people that creates an "immediate danger of damage to property" or personal injury, or that "substantially obstructs law enforcement or other governmental functions or services." The offense would be punishable by up to 3 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. The vagueness of the definition would allow authorities broad discretion to determine what constitutes, for instance, "creat[ing] an immediate danger" of property damage or injury. The bill includes new penalties for protests that interfere with traffic on roads and sidewalks, including a felony offense for "interfering with the regular flow of vehicular traffic" during a "violent or disorderly assembly." Under the bill, a driver who injures or kills someone who "obstructs or interferes with" traffic during an unpermitted protest or a "violent or disorderly assembly" is not criminally or civilly liable, as long as the driver did not do so "intentionally." The bill strips unemployment assistance from any person who is convicted of or pleads guilty or nolo contendere to a number of protest-related offenses, including "violent or disorderly assembly," and requires that government employees found guilty of violating any of the bill's provisions be fired from their positions. The bill precludes civil lawsuits against the state by anyone convicted of "unlawfully participating in a riot, unlawful assembly, public demonstration, mob violence, or civil disobedience," if the claim arises out of that conduct. Further, the bill creates a new civil right of action against local governments by any "victim" of "violent or unlawful assembly" or other protest-related offenses, if the local government "failed or was grossly negligent" in policing a riot or "violent or disorderly assembly" - provisions that, if enacted, could encourage municipal and other local governments to adopt overly aggressive law enforcement responses to protests in order to avoid lawsuits. The bill would newly add "violent or disorderly assembly" to the underlying crimes that can be prosecuted for "racketeering activity" under Mississippi's RICO statute, such that an organization or individual found to have "conspired" with individuals to engage in a protest that is deemed a "violent or disorderly assembly" could be prosecuted under RICO, and subject to felony penalties. Finally, the bill would amend Mississippi's law on "justifiable homicide," creating a new legal justification for anyone who uses deadly force to "necessarily" defend their business "where there is looting, rioting" or other offenses created under the bill, including the defacing of public property. (See full text of bill here)
Status: defeated / expired
Introduced 7 Jan 2021.
Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Driver Immunity, Riot, Traffic Interference, State Liability, Limit on Public Benefits
return to map
Oregon
HB 3329: New penalties for protesters who block traffic or are convicted of "riot," including limits on public benefits
Would create a new felony offense that could cover peaceful protesters who block traffic. Under the bill, obstructing vehicles or pedestrians "on a public way" would be a Class C felony, punishable by 5 years in prison and $125,000, if committed during a "violent or disorderly assembly." The bill defines "violent or disorderly assembly" as a group of two or more people who cause property damage or injury. The definition would seem to cover a large demonstration where some participants commit even minor property damage. The bill also creates a new Class C felony offense for causing "alarm" by "engaging in threatening or intimidating conduct" at a place of public accommodation. The bill limits access to public benefits and employment for protesters, providing that a person is disqualified from receiving public assistance or being employed by the state if the person is convicted of "riot" or any crime that has as an element the fact that it occurred during a "violent or disorderly assembly." The bill also prohibits the immediate release of a person arrested for "riot" or for a crime occurring during a "violent or disorderly assembly," until the person appears in court. Finally, the bill waives the immunity of public bodies, officers, employees and agents for a civil claim arising out of a "riot," if the entity or individual was "grossly negligent" in protecting persons or property. If enacted, such provisions could encourage local governments and law enforcement agencies to adopt overly aggressive responses to protests, to avoid costly lawsuits. (See full text of bill here)
Status: defeated / expired
Introduced 2 Mar 2021.
Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference, State Liability, Limit on Public Benefits
return to map
Pennsylvania
HB 2351: Barring financial aid for student protesters who commit certain crimes
Would bar state financial aid to students convicted of certain protest-related offenses. The bill requires that the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency deny all forms of financial assistance to any student who is convicted of offenses including trespass at an educational facility, government building, religious facility, or the grounds “adjacent to and owned or occupied by” such an entity. The bill’s sponsors cited protesters for Palestinian rights who occupied buildings on college and university campuses as motivation for the bill.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: defeated / expired
Introduced 14 Jun 2024.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Trespass, Limit on Public Benefits
return to map
