US Protest Law Tracker

The US Protest Law Tracker follows state and federal legislation introduced since January 2017 that restricts the right to peaceful assembly. For more information, visit our Analysis of US Anti-Protest Bills page.

45 states have
considered
319 bills
49 enacted 16 pending

No initiatives
Pending, defeated or expired initiatives
Enacted initiatives

Legislation

Latest updates: Feb. 7, 2025 (Ohio), Feb. 5, 2025 (Idaho), Jan. 30, 2025 (Alaska, Missouri)
Filter by:
Locations
Status
Issues
Date

Locations

Status

Issues

Introduction Date

from

to

Type

or
X

12 entries matching in provided filters in 10 states. Clear all filters
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
Idaho

HB 125: Heightened penalties for "riot"

Would create significant penalties that could cover peaceful protesters in a raucous demonstration where someone was injured. Under the bill, “riot” would be a felony rather than misdemeanor offense if it “result[ed] in physical injury to any person.” As written, the bill would make it possible for an individual to face felony penalties for “riot” regardless of whether they personally injured anyone, how serious the injury was, or whether the injury was intentional—merely if injury “resulted” from a “riot” they participated in. Idaho law, moreover, defines “riot” broadly to include just two or more people who take “any action… or threat thereof” that “disturb[s] the public peace.” As such, under the bill, if a protest were deemed a “riot” and any injury occurred, participants could face up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 4 Feb 2025.

Issue(s): Riot

return to map
Illinois

HB 1480: NEW PENALTIES FOR PROTESTS NEAR CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Would create a new felony offense that could cover nonviolent protesters at pipeline and other infrastructure sites. Under the bill, someone who knowingly “vandalizes, defaces, tampers with” or damages part of a critical infrastructure facility commits a felony. If the “value of the property” (not the cost of the damage) is less than $500, the offense is a Class 4 felony, punishable by 1-3 years in prison and up to $20,000; if the property value is $500-$10,000, it is a Class 3 felony (2-5 years and $20,000); and if the property value exceeds $10,000, it is a Class 2 felony (3-7 years and $20,000). The bill newly defines "critical infrastructure facility" under Illinois law to include gas and oil pipelines and a range of pipeline-related facilities, as well as electric, water, telecommunications, railroad, and “health care” facilities, regardless of whether they are fenced off or clearly marked with signs. As such, a protester who chalked or spraypainted a pipeline without damaging its functionality could face felony charges and a lengthy prison sentence if convicted. The bill extends liability to anyone who “conspires with” a person to commit the offense. It also provides that critical infrastructure owners can sue for punitive and compensatory damages. The same bill was introduced as HB 4746 in the 2023-2024 session. 

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 21 Jan 2025.

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

return to map
Indiana

SB 286: 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 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 to avoid contagion, to avoid retaliation for their political speech, or for any other reason, 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.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Jan 2025.

Issue(s): Face Covering, Riot

return to map
Iowa

HF 25: Heightened penalties for masked protesters

Would increase the penalty for any offense if committed by someone wearing a mask or other device that concealed their identity for the purpose of facilitating the offense. The bill provides exemptions for masks worn in a number of contexts, including holiday costumes, medical masks, and “hood[s]” or other “disguise[s]” worn by members of “a society, order, or organization while engaged in any parade, ritual” or “ceremony.” As such, for instance, members of the Klu Klux Klan would seemingly be exempt from enhanced penalties for illegally blocking traffic while parading in the street wearing hoods. The bill does not exempt masks worn during public protests, nor does it limit the enhanced penalties to violent crimes. Accordingly, a peaceful protester who committed a nonviolent offense while wearing a mask could face steeper penalties. A masked demonstrator engaged in a vigil who failed to disperse after being ordered to do so by police, for instance, could face up to a year in jail, rather than 30 days.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 14 Jan 2025.

Issue(s): Face Covering

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
Missouri

SB 52: Broadened “riot” offense and heightened penalties

Would make “rioting” a felony and significantly expand the scope of the offense such that it could cover peaceful demonstrators. The bill would remove a requirement in current Missouri law than an individual use “force or violence” in order to be criminally liable for “riot”: Under the bill, an individual engages in “rioting” if they merely assemble with six people and commit any unlawful act. A first offense would be a Class D felony (up to seven years in prison and $10,000) rather than a misdemeanor, and subsequent offenses would be a Class C felony (up to 10 years and $10,000). As such, participants in a seven-person vigil that commits a “peace disturbance” by blocking a sidewalk—a misdemeanor crime—could face felony charges. If anyone is injured during the “riot” or property damage of more than $5,000 occurs, the offense would be a Class B felony (up to 15 years), while if a police officer or other safety official is injured, rioting would be a Class A felony (up to life in prison). The bill does not appear to require that an individual have actually caused the injury or property damage in order to face the enhanced felony penalties. The bill would also create a new offense of “unlawful traffic interference,” defined as walking, sitting, standing or otherwise being present on a public street “in such a manner as to block passage by a vehicle,” with the intention of “impeding” traffic. As written, the offense does not require that traffic actually be impeded for the offense to occur, such that peaceful protesters who gather in the street could be covered even if they do not actually impede any vehicles. Traffic interference would be an infraction for the first offense, but a Class A misdemeanor (punishable by up to one year in jail) for second offense and a Class E felony (four years in prison) for third and subsequent offenses.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 27 Jan 2025.

Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference

return to map
Missouri

HB 495 / SB 44: Expanded definition and heightened penalties for rioting

Would substantially broaden the definition of “rioting” and make it a felony offense. Under current Missouri law, an individual commits “riot” if she knowingly assembles with six or more people, “agrees with such persons to violate any of the criminal laws of this state or of the United States with force or violence”, and then does violate a law with force or violence. The bill would eliminate the requirement for individuals to “agree” beforehand about their intention to break the law. The amended definition could arguably cover a broader swath of people involved in unruly protests, making individuals liable not only for an unlawful act they committed, but also doing so as part of a “riot” even if their actions were not coordinated with others. The bill would also make rioting a class D felony, punishable by up to 7 years in prison and $10,000, rather than a misdemeanor offense.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 8 Jan 2025.

Issue(s): Riot

return to map
Missouri

HB 601: Heightened penalties for masked protesters

Would increase the penalty for any offense if committed by someone wearing a mask or other device that concealed their identity. The bill does not require that someone intended to conceal their identity in order to facilitate a crime. The bill also does not provide exemptions for masks worn for medical or any other purpose, nor does it limit the enhanced penalties to violent crimes. As such, a peaceful protester who committed a nonviolent offense while wearing a mask—whether a medical mask to avoid contagion, a mask to avoid retaliation for their political speech, or a mask worn for any other reason—could face steep penalties. For instance, peaceful demonstrators in Missouri may be charged with “disturbing the peace,” a minor misdemeanor, if they make too much noise or obstruct a sidewalk or road in the course of a protest. Under the bill, a masked protester charged with that offense could face up to one year in jail and $2,000 for the first offense and a felony penalties (up to four years in prison and $10,000) for subsequent offenses.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 8 Jan 2025.

Issue(s): Face Covering

return to map
New York

S 723: New criminal penalties for masked protesters

Would create two new crimes that could apply to masked protesters and people who support them. Under the bill, a person who is masked or “disguised by unusual or unnatural attire or facial alteration,” who engages in a protest or other public assembly with other masked or disguised people, commits the offense of “deceptive wearing of a mask,” a Class B misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days in jail. The offense would likewise apply to anyone who “knowingly permits or aids” masked demonstrators who congregate in public. The offense does not require that an individual act unlawfully or have any intent to engage in unlawful behavior. A second offense, “aggravated deceptive wearing of a mask,” would apply to masked or disguised individuals engaged in a public assembly where property damage or injuries occur; the offense would be a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail. (As drafted, the bill does not make clear whether an individual need personally cause the damage or injury, or merely be part of a group where such damage or injury occurs, to commit the offense.) The bill provides exemptions for masks or disguises worn for religious purposes, or in connection with a government-authorized “masquerade party or like entertainment.” If enacted, the bill would give law enforcement broad discretion to arrest individuals who wear masks or other disguise at a public protest, as well as anyone who seemed to be “aiding” them. The same bill was introduced as S 9194 in the 2023-2024 session. 

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 8 Jan 2025.

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Face Covering

return to map
North Dakota

HB 1226: New criminal penalties for masked protesters

Would create a new criminal offense that could cover peaceful protesters who choose to wear a mask. The bill would make it a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and $3,000, to wear a mask “with intent to conceal the identity” of the wearer while “congregating in a public place with any other individual wearing a mask, hood, or other device that covers, hides, or conceals any portion of the individual’s face.” The bill exempts public gatherings to celebrate “Halloween, a masquerade, or other similar celebration,” but does not include exemptions for masks worn during protests, or for health, religious, or other reasons. As written, the bill could cover a protester wearing a mask to avoid retaliation for their political speech, if there were any other individual in the crowd also wearing a mask—for instance, a medical mask to avoid spreading or contracting a contagious disease.   

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Jan 2025.

Issue(s): Face Covering

return to map
Ohio

SB 53: New civil cause of action against protesters and supporters

Would make protesters, organizers, and funders civilly liable for damage and injury even if they did not personally cause it. Under the bill, someone whose property is damaged or who is injured as the result of a “riot” or “vandalism” offense could sue anyone who engaged in the offense. They could also sue “any person or organization who provided material support or resources with the intent that the material support or resources would be used to perpetuate” the offense. A civil suit under the bill could proceed regardless of whether the defendant was charged or convicted of committing “riot” or “vandalism,” and damages would include repairing the property or injury, as well as providing compensation for emotional distress, court costs, attorney’s fees, and “other reasonable expenses.” Ohio’s definition of “riot” requires only five people engaged in “disorderly conduct” with an unlawful purpose – to commit a misdemeanor, to impede a government function, or “hinder” the “orderly process” of administration or instruction at an educational institution. “Disorderly conduct” is likewise broadly defined as “recklessly caus[ing] inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another,” through means including “making unreasonable noise” or “hindering” movement of people on streets. As such, if the bill were enacted, participants in noisy or disruptive but nonviolent protests, as well as people and organizations that support them, could face expensive lawsuits. The bill also bars government officials from limiting law enforcement's authority to quell a "riot" or "vandalism," or to arrest or detain individuals involved in either offense. The same bill was introduced as SB 267 in the 2023-2024 session.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 28 Jan 2025.

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

return to map

For more information about the Tracker, contact Elly Page at EPage@icnl.org.