US Protest Law Tracker

The US Protest Law Tracker, part of ICNL's US Program, follows initiatives at the state and federal level since January 2017 that restrict the right to peaceful assembly. For information about our methodology, click here. For more information and an analysis of this data, click here.

45 states have
considered
230 bills
36 enacted 50 pending

No initiatives
Pending, defeated or expired initiatives
Enacted initiatives

Legislation and executive orders

Latest updates: Sep. 3, 2021 (North Carolina), Sep. 1, 2021 (North Carolina), Aug. 13, 2021 (Florida)
Filter by:
Locations
Status
Issues
Date
Type

Locations

Status

Issues

Introduction Date

from

to

Type

or
X

145 entries matching in provided filters in 42 states and 1 federal.
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” 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
US Federal

S 4424: Withhold Federal Funding for Failure to Prosecute Destructive Protest Activities

Would empower the U.S. Attorney General to withhold up to 10% of select federal funding from a state prosecutor's office, district attorney's office, or state attorney general office, if the U.S. Attorney General determines that the office has "abused the use of prosecutorial discretion by failing to prosecute crimes stemming from riots or other violent or destructive protest activities." Many riot statutes in the U.S. are broadly worded and can encompass non-violent protest activity. In the past, peaceful protesters have been prosecuted under these statutes. This bill could encourage an aggressive interpretation of riot statutes as well as other laws that could be used against peaceful demonstrators. On September 17, 2020, HR 8301 was introduced in the House of Representatives, which has nearly identical language to S 4424. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 4 Aug 2020.

Issue(s): Riot

return to map
US Federal

S 4266: Withhold Federal Funding for Failure to Either Prosecute or Properly Police a Riot

Would empower the U.S. Attorney General to withhold select federal funding if the Attorney General determines that a state or local government has a "custom or policy" of not prosecuting an individual engaged in unlawful activity as part of a riot or if they decline to prosecute because the "unlawful activity is related to or associated with expression of speech protected by the First Amendment". The U.S. Attorney General can also withhold select federal funding if a senior official, governing body, or policy prohibits law enforcement from taking action that would prevent or mitigate physical injury or property depredation related to a riot. The U.S. Attorney General could withhold up to 25% of select federal funding or twice the monetary value of property damaged or physical injury caused by the failure of the state or local government to take "reasonable steps" to protect against damage and injury. The bill also would create liability for "a person with the lawful authority to direct a law enforcement agency" to prohibit law enforcement from taking action that would prevent or materially mitigate significant injury or property destruction related to a riot. The bill defines riot using the broad federal definition of riot. Such broadly worded riot provisions have been used to prosecute peaceful protesters in the past. This bill may pressure law enforcement to police assemblies aggressively to ensure that their policing practices are not second guessed by the federal government resulting in loss of funding or because doing otherwise might open them up to civil litigation. The bill could also lead to the aggressive interpretation of riot statutes against peaceful protesters by prosecutors so as not to risk losing federal funding. A companion bill HR 7786 has been introduced in the House. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 22 Jul 2020.

Issue(s): Damage Costs, Police Response, Riot, State Liability

return to map
US Federal

DOT Legislative Proposal: New federal criminal penalties for protests near pipelines

In its proposed congressional reauthorization of pipeline safety programs, the Department of Transportation included expanded criminal penalties that could be applied to protests near gas and oil pipelines. The proposal would newly criminalize under federal law "vandalizing, tampering with, impeding the operation of, disrupting the operation of, or inhibiting the operation of" a pipeline or a pipeline construction site. The offense would be punishable by up to 20 years in prison, and/or a steep fine: up to $250,000 for an individual, or $500,000 for an organization. Any "attempt" or "conspiracy" to commit the offense would likewise be subject to a 20-year prison sentence. Accordingly, individuals as well as organizations that participate in a protest or engage in the planning of a protest deemed to "inhibit" a pipeline construction site could face lengthy prison sentences and/or steep fines. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 3 Jun 2019.

Issue(s): Conspiracy, Infrastructure

return to map
US Federal

HR 6054: Harsh penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

The "Unmask Antifa Act of 2018" would make it a federal crime, subject to a lengthy prison sentence, to wear a mask or other disguise while protesting in a "threatening" or "intimidating" way. Under the act, anyone who "injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates any person" while "in disguise, including while wearing a mask" could be sentenced to up to 15 years in prison as well as fined. The bill explicitly exempts police and other law enforcement agents, stating that "nothing in this section shall be construed so as to deter any law enforcement officer from lawfully carrying out the duties of his office." The name of the bill, introduced by Republican Rep. Daniel Donovan and supported by Reps. Peter King, Ted Budd, and Paul Gosar, refers to the leftist anti-Fascist movement, some members of which have worn masks during protests. The bill expired with the close of the 115th Congress on January 3, 2019. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 8 Jun 2018.

Issue(s): Face Covering

return to map
Alabama

S 398: New penalties for "riot," "incitement to riot," and expanded "incitement to riot" definition

Would create a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 days for rioting without the possibility of parole and would require that someone convicted of rioting pay restitution for any property damage or costs for medical treatment of anyone injured during a riot. In Alabama a riot is an assemblage of five or more persons resulting in conduct that creates an immediate danger to property or injury to person. As such, a person engaged in peaceful protest could be convicted of rioting if others around them are judged to have created a danger to persons or property. The bill would also expand the state's incitement to riot provision creating a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 days for the crime of incitement to riot without the possibility of parole and would require that someone convicted of incitement pay restitution for any property damage or costs for medical treatment of anyone injured during a riot. Under Alabama law, incitement includes "urging" someone to riot, language that has been found unconstitutionally overbroad by federal courts. The bill would also expand incitement to include those who "fund" or otherwise aid or abet a person to engage in rioting. This language could create organizational liability for a group that organizes a peaceful protest that is later classified as a riot, even if no damage to property or violence occurs. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 20 Apr 2021.

Issue(s): Damage Costs, Conspiracy, Riot

return to map
Alabama

HB 516: NEW PENALTIES FOR PROTESTS NEAR GAS AND OIL PIPELINES

Would create new criminal penalties for protesters on pipeline property. The bill expands the definition of "critical infrastructure" under Alabama law to include pipelines and mining operations. Alabama law currently prohibits unauthorized entry onto critical infrastructure, defined as intentionally entering a posted area of critical infrastructure; the offense is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $6,000. Under the bill, if a person interrupts or interferes with the operations of critical infrastructure, they would additionally be guilty of a Class C felony, punishable by at least one and up to 10 years in prison. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Mar 2021.

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass

return to map
Alabama

HB 445: Expanded definition of "riot," "incitement to riot," and new penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would redefine "riot" under Alabama law as a "tumultuous disturbance" in public by five or more assembled people, acting with common intent, that creates a "grave danger" of substantial property damage or serious injury or that "substantially obstructs" a government function. This definition is broad enough to cover loud but peaceful protests, as well as raucous tailgate parties. Current Alabama law, by contrast, requires that a person individually engage in "violent conduct" as part of a group in order to have committed "riot." Knowingly participating in a "riot" is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by one year in jail and a $6,000 fine. The bill provides that if any property damage or injuries occur, then anyone participating in the group is guilty of "aggravated riot," a new Class C felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The bill expands the current definition of "incitement to riot" under Alabama law to include a person who "funds" or "otherwise aids or abets" another person to engage in a "riot." Given the bill's broad definition of "riot," the redefined definition of "incitement" could cover people only tangentially associated with a protest, such as individuals who hand out bottles of water to protesters. The bill creates a rebuttable presumption against granting bail to anyone charged with "riot" or "aggravated riot;" it also adds mandatory minimum prison sentences for "riot," "aggravated riot," and "incitement to riot," and requires that anyone convicted pay restitution for any property damage incurred by the "riot." The bill creates a new offense of unlawful traffic interference for anyone who, with the intent to impede traffic, walks, sits, or lies to block passage of a vehicle on a public or interstate highway. The first offense is a Class A misdemeanor and a second offence (or if property is damaged or someone is injured) is a Class D felony, punishable by up to 5 years in jail. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 24 Feb 2021; Approved by House 18 March 2021

Issue(s): Damage Costs, Conspiracy, Riot, Traffic Interference

return to map
Alabama

SB 155: New justification for using deadly force near a "riot"

Would expand the instances in which a person may lawfully use deadly force, to include areas near a "riot." Under current Alabama law, a person may use deadly force on their property if they reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent someone from trespassing and either committing a violent act against the person, or arson. The bill would also allow a person to use deadly force to prevent trespass if there is an "active riot" within 500 feet of the premises and the person reasonably believes it is necessary to use such force to prevent criminal mischief or burglary. If enacted, the bill would increase the likelihood of violence if residents or business owners become alarmed by raucous but peaceful protests. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 2 Feb 2021.

Issue(s): Riot, Trespass, Stand Your Ground

return to map
Alabama

HB 133: Expanded definition of "riot" and "incitement to riot," and new penalties for protesters who deface monuments

Would redefine "riot" under Alabama law as a "tumultuous disturbance" in public by five or more assembled people, acting with common intent, that creates a "grave danger" of substantial property damage or serious injury or that "substantially obstructs" a government function. This definition is broad enough to cover loud but peaceful protests, as well as raucous tailgate parties. Current Alabama law, by contrast, requires that a person individually engage in "violent conduct" as part of a group in order to have committed "riot." Knowingly participating in a "riot" is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by one year in jail and a $6,000 fine. The bill provides that if any property damage or injuries occur, then anyone participating in the group is guilty of "aggravated riot," a new Class C felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The bill expands the current definition of "incitement to riot" under Alabama law to include a person who "funds" or "otherwise aids or abets" another person to engage in a "riot." Given the bill's broad definition of "riot," the redefined definition of "incitement" could cover people only tangentially associated with a protest, such as individuals who hand out bottles of water to protesters. The bill creates a rebuttable presumption against granting bail to anyone charged with "riot" or "aggravated riot;" it also adds mandatory minimum prison sentences for "riot," "aggravated riot," and "incitement to riot," and requires that anyone convicted pay restitution for any property damage incurred by the "riot." The bill would create a new Class D felony offense, punishable by up to 5 years in prison, for anyone who intentionally "mars, marks," or "defaces" a public monument, even if the marks are only "temporary." Doing so in the course of a "riot" or "unlawful assembly" would be a Class C felony. Under the bill, "riot," "aggravated riot," "incitement to riot," and "damaging a public monument," are all to be considered "violent offences" for the purpose of sentencing. Finally, the bill would disqualify anyone convicted of "riot," "aggravated riot," or "incitement to riot" from holding public office. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 26 Jan 2021.

Issue(s): Damage Costs, Riot

return to map
Alabama

SB 45: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines

Would amend existing state law to create new criminal penalties for conduct that may occur in the course of peaceful protests near oil or gas pipelines and other infrastructure facilities. Alabama already criminalizes trespass onto “critical infrastructure,” pursuant to law passed in 2016. The bill would expand the law's definition of “critical infrastructure” to include "pipelines," such that a person who trespasses onto pipeline property could be charged with a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by one year in jail and a $6,000 fine. The bill would also create a new felony offense for any person who "injures," "interrupts or interferes with" critical infrastructure while trespassing. Such an act would be a Class C felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison and $15,000. HB 36 has similar provisions in the House and was introduced January 23, 2020. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 4 Feb 2020; Approved by Senate 12 March 2020

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass

return to map
Alabama

HB 94: Felony charges for disruptive protesters

Would make it a felony for a person to do something illegal to prevent "or attempt to prevent" a public speaking event. Accordingly, a protester who disrupts a public speech while committing another infraction (e.g. trespassing) could be charged with a Class B felony, punishable by up to 20 years in prison. Critics argue that the bill provides for disproportionately harsh penalties, and that its broad language would enable authorities to enforce it selectively. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Jan 2018.

return to map
Alaska

HB 295: Mandatory sanctions for campus protesters

Would create mandatory disciplinary sanctions that could be applied to peaceful protesters at the University of Alaska. The bill requires the University to adopt a policy prohibiting and subjecting to sanction any "protests or demonstrations that materially and substantially infringe on the rights of others to engage in or listen to expressive activity." Additionally, the bill requires administrators to suspend for at least one year or expel any student who is twice found "to have infringed on the expressive rights of another," such as through a protest of a campus speaker. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 24 Feb 2020.

Issue(s): Campus Speech

return to map
Arizona

SB 1784: Heightened penalties for "riot," "unlawful assembly," and protests that block traffic

Would elevate the offence of "riot" from a Class 5 to a Class 4 felony, punishable by three years in prison. Arizona defines "riot" broadly under existing law, to include joining two or more other people and recklessly using or threatening to use force that "disturbs the public peace." The bill also increases the penalty for "interfering" with traffic on a public thoroughfare while engaged in an "unlawful assembly" or "riot." The offense, which is otherwise a misdemeanor, would be a Class 6 felony punishable by up to two year in prison. Finally, the bill requires that anyone convicted of "unlawful assembly," a Class 1 misdemeanor, pay "at least" $500 in fines. Arizona law defines "unlawful assembly" as joining a group of two or more people with intent to engage in conduct constituting "riot," or being present at such a group, knowingly remaining, and refusing to disperse. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 3 Feb 2021.

Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference

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): Conspiracy, 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
Arizona

SB 1033: Felony penalty for protesters who conceal their identity

Would heighten the penalties for an individual convicted of participating in an unlawful assembly or a riot, if the individual "obscures or hides the person's identity with a mask, disguise, makeup, or other device" during the event. Under the bill, conviction for unlawful assembly (a Class 1 misdemeanor) would become a Class 6 felony if committed while wearing a mask, punishable by up to two years in prison. Conviction for riot (a Class 5 felony) would become a Class 4 felony if committed while wearing a mask and subject to up to four years in prison. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 13 Dec 2017.

Issue(s): Face Covering, Riot

return to map
Arizona

SB 1142: Expanded definition of "riot"

Would have substantially broadened the definition of "riot," from the reckless use or threat of force that disturbs the public peace, to such use or threat of force that either disturbs the public peace or causes property damage. Under the bill, organizers and protesters could be charged as conspirators, and bystanders could be held liable if they witness someone declare an intention to start a riot. The bill also adds "riot" to the list of offenses included under racketeering law, such that participating in or being near a riot could lead to prosecution on felony racketeering charges. The bill provides that prosecutors may seize a person's assets under civil forfeiture laws in addition to filing enhanced felony criminal charges. After the bill's approval by the Arizona Senate on February 22, 2017, the House of Representatives rejected the bill. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 19 Jan 2017; Approved by Senate on 22 Feb 2017; House consideration denied 28 Feb 2017

Issue(s): Conspiracy, Riot

return to map
Arkansas

HB 1898: Heightened penalties for protests that block roads

Would create the offense of "aggravated disorderly conduct," defined to include "recklessly creating a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm" by "obstruct[ing] the free use of public roads, streets, highways, airports, or other rights-of-way of travel." The offense would be a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $2,500. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 20 Mar 2019; Died on House Calendar at sine die adjournment 24 April 2019

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Arkansas

SB 118: Criminal penalties for school and university campus protesters

Would create a new criminal sanction that could be applied to peaceful protesters on public university as well as high school grounds. The bill contains 17 broadly-worded "guarantees of free speech," including a provision that "a student shall not significantly obstruct the freedom of other speakers" to state their own views on campus. The bill provides that anyone who negligently violates any of the "rights" provided for in the bill is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, which in Arkansas is punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of $2,500. Accordingly, a student who was deemed to have "significantly obstructed" the speech of a controversial campus speaker, for example, could be charged with a serious misdemeanor. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 17 Jan 2019.

Issue(s): Campus Speech

return to map
Arkansas

AB 550: Criminalizing "unlawful mass picketing"

Would have introduced a new crime, "unlawful mass picketing." Under the bill, picketing or demonstrating near a private establishment, business, or school would be illegal if it obstructs the entrance to a place of employment or blocks use of roads, railways, or airports. Commission of unlawful mass picketing would be a Class A misdemeanor, subject to up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $2,500. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 2 Mar 2017; Approved by Senate 13 March 2017; Approved by House 29 March 2017; Vetoed by Governor Hutchinson 6 April 2017

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
California

AB 1358: New restrictions on campus protests

Would impose new limits on protests at public and private institutions of higher education. The bill would require all institutions of higher education in the state to adopt a policy prohibiting protests and demonstrations that "material and substantially infringe upon the rights of others to engage in or listen to expressive activity" and make protesters involved in such assemblies "subject to sanction." As a result, protests in public areas of campus that, for instance, made it difficult to hear a speech, would be banned and its participants liable to penalties. This behavior would be subject to a "range of disciplinary sanctions," including "suspensions, firings, and expulsions." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 22 Feb 2019.

Issue(s): Campus Speech

return to map
Colorado

SB18-264: Barring teachers from protesting in support of a teachers' strike

Would have prohibited public school teachers from participating in protests that supported a teachers' strike. The bill broadly bans all public school teachers from "directly or indirectly" "inducing, instigating," or "encouraging" a strike "against any public school employer." Accordingly, teachers that were not participating in a strike could be barred from participating in a protest or demonstration deemed to "indirectly" "encourage[]" the strike, even outside of school hours. The bill provides that any teacher who is "convicted of violating" the bill's provisions, including its ban on direct or indirect support of strikes, is to be "immediately terminate[d]" by their public school employer; that he or she is not entitled to a hearing or judicial review of the termination; and that he or she is barred from public school employment for one year following termination. Lawmakers introduced the bill as teachers across the state threatened to go on strike for higher wages and increased education funding. After the bill received immediate, widespread criticism in the days following its introduction, a Senate committee voted to postpone it indefinitely, and its sponsors said they would withdraw it. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 20 Apr 2018.

Issue(s): Strikes

return to map
Colorado

SB 17-035: Heightened penalties for protesting near oil and gas equipment

Would have substantially increased penalties for environmental protesters. Under the bill, obstructing or tampering with oil and gas equipment is reclassified from a misdemeanor to a Class 6 felony, punishable by up to 18 months in prison and a fine of up to $100,000. The bill's language broadly includes anyone who "attempts to alter, obstruct, interrupt, or interfere with the action of any equipment used or associated with oil or gas gathering operations." In addition to imposing much steeper penalties on anyone engaging in such activity, the bill also provides that oil and gas firms (or any other "victim" of tampering) may pursue separate claims against a protester who is also being prosecuted by the state. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 11 Jan 2017; Approved by Senate 28 March 2017; Failed in House committee 12 April 2017

Issue(s): Infrastructure

return to map
Connecticut

HB 6455: New penalty for protests that disturb the legislature

Would make it a Class D felony, punishable by at least one and up to 5 years in prison a $5,000 fine, to disrupt, disturb, or interfere with any proceeding of the General Assembly by making unreasonable noise, performing an act that disturbs or disrupts the proceeding, refusing to comply with an order of the police, or engaging in violent, tumultuous, or threatening behavior or language. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 11 Feb 2021.

return to map
Florida

SB 1096/HB 1419: Eliminating driver liability for hitting protesters

Would have criminalized the obstruction of traffic during an unpermitted protest or demonstration as a second degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to 60 days in prison and a $500 fine. The bill also eliminates civil liability for a driver who unintentionally injures or kills a protestor interfering with traffic during an unpermitted protest or demonstration. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 21 Feb 2017; Introduced 7 March 2017 in House; Failed in Senate committee 8 May 2017

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Traffic Interference

return to map
Georgia

SB 160: Heightened penalties for blocking traffic

As introduced and passed by the Georgia Senate, the "Back the Badge" bill included heightened penalties for intentionally or recklessly blocking "any highway, street, sidewalk, or other passage." Accordingly, protesters and demonstrators peacefully obstructing a public sidewalk could have been charged with a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature, which under Georgia law is subject to up to a $5,000 fine or up to one year in jail. These provisions were removed, however, in the version of the bill approved by the House of Representatives and sent to the Governor on April 10, 2017. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 10 Apr 2017; Approved by Senate 24 Feb 2017; Approved by House 24 March 2017 without protest provisions

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Georgia

SB 1: Expanding definition of "domestic terrorism"

Would have broadened the definition of "domestic terrorism" under Georgia law to potentially include demonstrations, boycotts, and other forms of protest and political expression. Under the bill, the previously high bar for committing domestic terrorism of "harm caused to a group of 10 or more individuals" is lowered to include causing harm to at least one individual or disabling "critical infrastructure." The new target, "critical infrastructure" is in turn very broadly defined to include "public or private systems, functions or assets, whether physical or virtual, vital to the security, governance, public health and safety, economy, or morale of this state or the United States." The bill also introduces a new provision targeting actions that have a political or ideological component, such that domestic terrorism would include an action intended to advance "any ideology or belief," whether held individually or as part of a group. Commission of domestic terrorism as defined by the bill would be a felony punishable by prison sentences ranging from five years to life. Given the broad language of the bill and extreme penalties involved, rights leaders feared that it was aimed to monitor, punish, and chill free speech activities including protests. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 10 Jan 2017; Approved by Senate 1 March 2017; Failed in House 28 March 2017

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Terrorism

return to map
Idaho

SB 1090: New penalties for protests near critical infrastructure

Would create new potential penalties for protests near oil or gas pipelines and other infrastructure facilities, including those under construction. The bill creates two new offenses: "critical infrastructure trespass," and "impeding critical infrastructure." Critical infrastructure trespass is defined in the bill as knowingly entering onto infrastructure property without authorization or not leaving once notified to depart; the bill classifies it as a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of $1,000. "Impeding" critical infrastructure is defined to include "preventing legal access to" a critical infrastructure property or construction site. Under the bill, such impediment is punishable by 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine if the impediment results in $1,000 worth of damage or economic loss. If the damage or loss is less than $1,000, the offense is punishable by six months imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. The bill also provides that an organization "that aids, abets, solicits, compensates, hires, conspires with, commands, or procures" someone to impede critical infrastructure is subject to a $100,000 fine and liable for a civil action by the infrastructure facility. "Critical infrastructure facility" is broadly defined and among many other things includes oil and gas pipelines, refineries, water treatment plants, cell phone towers, and railroad tracks -as well as "[a]ny facility included [above] that is lawfully permitted and under construction." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 11 Feb 2019.

Issue(s): Conspiracy, Infrastructure

return to map
Illinois

HB 2280: Mandatory sanctions for campus protesters

Would create mandatory disciplinary sanctions that could be applied to peaceful protesters on college and university campuses. Like HB 2939, introduced in the 2017-2018 session, HB 2280 requires public universities and community colleges to adopt a policy prohibiting and subjecting to sanction any "protests or demonstrations that infringe upon the rights of others to engage in or listen to expressive activity" on campus. Additionally, the bill requires administrators to suspend for at least one year or expel any student who is twice "found responsible for infringing on the expressive rights of others," such as through a protest of a campus speaker. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 8 Feb 2019.

Issue(s): Campus Speech

return to map
Illinois

HB 1633: New penalties for protests near critical infrastructure

Would heighten the penalties for protests near oil and gas pipelines and other infrastructure that involve trespassing onto infrastructure property. Under the bill, knowingly trespassing to a critical infrastructure facility is a Class 4 felony, punishable by $1,000 and 3 years in prison. Aggravated criminal trespass to a critical infrastructure facility--defined as trespass with intent to vandalize, deface, or tamper with the facility--is a Class 3 felony punishable by $10,000 and 10 years in prison. The bill would also create a broadly-defined new offense, "criminal damage to a critical infrastructure facility," which includes knowingly vandalizing, defacing, or tampering with critical infrastructure and does not require actual damage. The offense is a Class 1 felony, punishable by $100,000 and 15 years in prison. An individual convicted of any of the offenses is also civilly liable for money damages, court costs, and attorney's fees to the owner of the property, for any damage sustained. The bill newly defines "critical infrastructure facility" under Illinois law to include a range of oil, gas, electric, water, telecommunications, and railroad facilities that are fenced off or posted. As introduced, the bill also provided that an organization found to have conspired with an individual to commit any of above offenses would be liable for a fine of at least ten times the minimum fine authorized for the individual, however these provisions were removed by an amendment. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 31 Jan 2019; Approved by House 11 April 2019

Issue(s): Conspiracy, Infrastructure

return to map
Illinois

HB 2939: Mandatory sanctions for campus protesters

Would create mandatory disciplinary sanctions that could be applied to peaceful protesters on college and university campuses. The bill requires public universities and community colleges to adopt a policy prohibiting and subjecting to sanction any "protests or demonstrations that infringe upon the rights of others to engage in or listen to expressive activity" on campus. Additionally, the bill requires administrators to suspend for at least one year or expel any student who is twice "found responsible for infringing on the expressive rights of others," such as through a protest of a campus speaker. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Feb 2017.

Issue(s): Campus Speech

return to map
Indiana

SB 96: Expanded definition of "riot" and ban on protest camps on state property

Would redefine "rioting" as three or more people who "recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally" engage in "tumultuous" conduct, punishable by a minimum of 30 days in jail and up to one year in prison. "Tumultuous" conduct includes conduct that obstructs law enforcement or other governmental functions, or that is likely to result in substantial damage to property or bodily injury. The offense does not require actual property damage or violence, and could cover a small peaceful group of protesters that momentarily blocks a government vehicle. The bill also makes it a class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail, to "camp" in a number of places around the state capitol building after being informed that camping is not allowed, either by signage or in person. Camping is defined as conduct between 10pm and 7am that includes laying down a blanket or placing a piece of furniture on state property. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 7 Jan 2021; Withdrawn on 25 January 2021

Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference, Camping

return to map
Indiana

SB 78: Increased penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

Would enhance the penalty for a person who commits a "public order offense" while wearing a mask. Public order offenses include disorderly conduct, unlawful assembly, and rioting--generally all misdemeanors. The bill provides that if a person committed such an offense, the prosecutor may seek an additional prison term of up to 30 months if the state can prove that the person intentionally concealed their identity by wearing mask or other face covering. The same bill was initially introduced in January 2018 as SB 73. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 3 Jan 2019.

Issue(s): Face Covering, Riot

return to map
Indiana

SB 285: Heightened police response to protests that block traffic

As introduced, the bill would have allowed law enforcement officials to use "any means necessary" to break up public assemblies that obstructed traffic. The bill defines "mass traffic obstruction" as an obstruction of street or highway traffic by at least 10 people as part or result of a protest, riot, or other assembly. It provides that public officials were obliged within 15 minutes of learning of a mass traffic obstruction to dispatch all available law enforcement with directions to "use any means necessary" to clear the roads of the persons obstructing traffic. After extensive committee amendments softening the bill, the Indiana Senate voted on February 27, 2017 effectively to vacate it and instead create a study committee to examine what constitutes a "reasonable response" to mass traffic obstruction. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Jan 2017; Amended in committee 23 Feb 2017; Effectively vacated 27 Feb 2017

Issue(s): Police Response, Traffic Interference

return to map
Iowa

SB 286: Heightened penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would prohibit persons from standing on Iowa highways with the intention of blocking traffic. The bill, which sponsors say is designed to target disruptive highway protests, provides that a person "shall not loiter, or place or cause to be placed any obstruction" on a highway "with the intention of blocking the normal and reasonable movement of motor vehicle traffic." Individuals who do so may be charged with a serious misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,875 fine. A second offense is an aggravated misdemeanor, punishable by up to two years' imprisonment and a $6,250 fine; a third offense is a Class D felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $7,500 fine. The bill was originally introduced in March 2017 as SF 426. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 2 Mar 2017; reintroduced 18 February 2019

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Kansas

HB 2612: New penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

Would create the crime of concealing one's identity during a public demonstration. The bill provides that wearing a mask, hood, or any other device that "covers any portion of the face to conceal the identity of the wearer" while participating in a public demonstration or protest would be a Class A misdemeanor, if done to intimidate another person or while engaged in any unlawful activity. Accordingly, a protester whose identity was masked by a facial covering and who committed some other infraction could be sentenced to a year in jail or a fine of up to $2,500, or both. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 2 Feb 2018; Died in committee 4 May 2018

Issue(s): Face Covering

return to map
Kentucky

HB 546: Heightened penalties for protesters who block traffic, disrupt meetings, or participate in a "riot"

Would increase the penalty for obstructing a highway or public passage to a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail. If the obstruction prevents an emergency vehicle from accessing a street or access to an emergency exit it is a class D felony, punishable by one to five years in prison. The bill increases the penalty for disrupting a meeting, including by making "any utterance, gesture, or display designed to outrage the sensibilities of the group," to a Class A misdemeanor. The bill also creates a mandatory minimum sentence of thirty days in jail for someone who knowingly participates in a "riot." A "riot" in Kentucky is defined as a group of five or more persons which by tumultuous and violent conduct create a grave danger of damage or injury to property or persons or obstructs law enforcement. As such, a person could face a mandatory sentence even if they did not engage in violence themselves, no one was injured, and no substantial property damage occurred. Under the bill, there is a presumption that a person shall not be released from custody for at least 12 hours if they have been charged with obstructing a highway or public passage, disrupting a meeting, or participating in a "riot." This provides police and prosecutors wide discretion to detain protesters even if they have not been charged with any violence or convicted of any crime. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 23 Feb 2021; Expired with end of 2021 session

Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference

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
Kentucky

HB 164: New penalties for protests that disrupt lawful meetings, block traffic, occur overnight on state property, and for "riot" offenses

Would raise penalties for protests that disrupt or offend meetings of public officials. The penalty for "disrupting a meeting" is increased to a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail, if a person did "any act" "tending to obstruct" a lawful meeting, or made "any utterance, gesture, or display designed to outrage the sensibilities of the group." Protests that block streets would face higher penalties as well: Obstructing any "public passage" is raised to a Class A misdemeanor; it is raised to a Class D felony, punishable by up to five years in prison, if it prevents an "emergency vehicle," defined as any government or public service vehicle responding to an emergency, from accessing a street. The bill also bars 24-hour protests on certain state property, by making it a Class D felony 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. The bill would impose mandatory minimum sentences of 30-45 days for individuals convicted of riot offenses. Kentucky law defines "riot" as a group of five or more that creates a danger of property damage or personal injury, or that substantially obstructs law enforcement or another government function, through violent and tumultuous conduct. The bill would also require that courts order full restitution "for any pecuniary loss" in riot convictions. The provision does not require that an individual convicted be ordered to pay restitution only for "pecuniary loss" that they were directly responsible for. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 5 Jan 2021; Expired with end of 2021 session

Issue(s): Damage Costs, Riot, Traffic Interference, Camping

return to map
Kentucky

HB 238: New penalties for protests near pipelines and other infrastructure

Would create new potential criminal and civil penalties for protests around oil or gas pipelines and other infrastructure facilities. The bill expands the definition of "key infrastructure assets" to include "natural gas or petroleum pipelines and related facilities." Encompassed facilities and properties designated "key infrastructure assets" are not limited to areas that are fenced off or posted by "no entry" signs. Under the bill, a person who "intentionally" vandalizes, defaces, or impedes or inhibits key infrastructure is guilty of "trespass upon key infrastructure assets in the first degree." It is unclear whether a protest that "impeded" access to a pipeline by blocking a road, or one that "inhibited" the operation of a pipeline by blocking pipeline construction or repair equipment, would fall under this definition. The offense is categorized as a Class D felony, punishable by up to five years in prison. The bill also provides that an individual convicted of the offense may be civilly liable for "any damages to personal or real property while trespassing." Finally, the bill provides that a person or "entity" that "compensates or remunerates a person for trespassing" may be held liable for damages, as well. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 5 Feb 2019; Approved by House 26 February 2019

Issue(s): Conspiracy, Infrastructure, Trespass

return to map
Kentucky

HB 53: Eliminating driver liability for hitting protesters

Would eliminate all liability for drivers who injure or kill a protester who is blocking traffic. The bill creates a new Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail, for interfering with traffic on a public road during a protest for which a permit has not been granted. Under the bill, a motorist who injures or kills an individual who is interfering with traffic during such an event cannot be held criminally or civilly liable, unless the action was intentional. The bill, prefiled as BR 305 on October 24, 2017, also prohibits the wearing of face coverings and bearing of weapons near a public protest. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 2 Jan 2018.

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Face Covering

return to map
Kentucky

BR 175: Criminalizing face coverings and weapons near protests

Would create new penalties for wearing masks or protective gear, or carrying a weapon near a public protest. According to the prefiled bill, an individual within 500 feet of a protest may not wear a mask, hood, helmet, or other facade that "covers any portion of his or her face." Likewise, individuals within 500 feet of a protest may not wear protective gear such as shields or armor, nor carry a deadly or dangerous weapon. Under the bill, commission of either act comprises "disruption of a public protest," punishable as a Class A misdemeanor with up to twelve months in jail and a $500 fine. BR 175 was ultimately withdrawn, but its provisions on "disruption of a public protest" were included in HB 53 at the beginning of the 2018 legislative session. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 24 Aug 2017.

Issue(s): Face Covering

return to map
Kentucky

HB 488: Harsh penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

Would make it a class D felony to wear a mask, hood, or other device to conceal one's identity at a public protest, demonstration, or march in order to escape recognition when committing a crime. As such, a protester wearing a mask who committed a relatively minor crime, such as traffic interference, could face this offense, which is punishable by a minimum of one year and up to to five years in jail. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 2 Feb 2017.

Issue(s): Face Covering

return to map
Louisiana

HB 197: New penalties for protests near critical infrastructure

Would build on a 2018 law that heightened penalties for protesters near pipelines and other "critical infrastructure"(see HB 727). The bill further expands the definition of "critical infrastructure" to include "water control structures, including floodgates or pump stations." This would expand the universe of places where protesters could face felony charges and 5 years in prison for "unauthorized entry of a critical infrastructure" e.g. for protests near dams and levees, as well as such structures that are under construction. The bill also provides heightened penalties for "unauthorized entry of a critical infrastructure" during a state of emergency: Under the bill, if a state of emergency is in effect, unauthorized entry onto critical infrastructure (for instance during a peaceful protest) is punishable by at least 3 and up to 15 years imprisonment, along with a fine of $5,000-$10,000. As such, protesters could face even harsher penalties for protesting on infrastructure property or infrastructure construction sites during a state of emergency. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 24 Feb 2020; Approved by House 22 May 2020; Approved by Senate 29 May 2020; Vetoed by Governor Edwards 12 June 2020

Issue(s): Infrastructure, State of Emergency, Trespass

return to map
Louisiana

HB 269: Mandatory sanctions for campus protesters

Would have created mandatory disciplinary sanctions that could be applied to peaceful protesters on college and university campuses. The bill prohibits "protests and demonstrations that infringe upon the rights of others to engage in or listen to expressive activity" on college campuses. In addition, the bill requires public colleges to suspend for at least one year or expel any student found responsible for infringing the expressive rights of others, including by protesting. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 30 Mar 2017; Vetoed by Governor Edwards 27 June 2017

Issue(s): Campus Speech

return to map
Maryland

HB 645: New penalties for protests on streets and sidewalks

Would create new criminal penalties for protesters who interfere with vehicular or pedestrian traffic. The bill makes it an offense to knowingly and unlawfully "obstruct, hinder, impede, or block" use of a "highway." The offense would be a misdemeanor punishable by 3 years in prison and a $2,500 fine. Maryland Code on Transportation 8-101 defines "highway" to include any "structures forming an integral part of a street, road, or highway, including bicycle and walking paths." If the bill were enacted, peaceful protesters who temporarily diverted pedestrians on a sidewalk could face up to three years in prison. The bill would also newly criminalize "disturb[ing] the peace of another" by making an "unreasonably loud noise"--for instance through a march or demonstration--on a street or other right-of-way. The offense would be a misdemeanor, punishable by two months in jail and a $500 fine. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 22 Jan 2021.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Maryland

HB 198: New penalties for protests that "disturb the peace"

Would dramatically expand the definition of "disturbing the peace" such that it could be applied to protests in a number of contexts. Under the bill, the offense is revised to broadly prohibit intentionally causing or recklessly creating a risk of "public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm," by conduct including: engaging in "tumultuous or threatening behavior;" "making unreasonable noise;" "disturbing" any lawful meeting or gathering; or obstructing vehicular or pedestrian traffic. As revised, the offense could apply to protesters who are deemed "threatening" or "unreasonably" noisy; it could also apply to a protest that "disturbs" a government hearing or "obstructs" pedestrians on a public sidewalk. The offense is a misdemeanor punishable by up to two months in jail and a $500 fine. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 1 Nov 2020; Withdrawn by sponsor 2 March 2021

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Massachusetts

HB 1428: New penalties for protests that block roads

Would penalize "any person who intentionally blocks or prevents access to a public roadway or highway while protesting with the express purpose of preventing passage of others." Under the bill, anyone who intentionally blocked a public road in the course of a protest could be sentenced to up to ten years in prison. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 22 Jan 2019.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Massachusetts

HB 3284: New criminal liability for deaths during protests

Would create the new criminal offense of "manslaughter caused by reckless disregard of life while protesting or blocking highway or roadway access." The offense would be added to the definition of "manslaughter" under Massachusetts law. Accordingly, if organizers led a protest onto a road and a protester was hit by a car, e.g., the organizers could potentially be held liable for manslaughter under the bill. The offense would be punishable by up to twenty years in prison. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 22 Jan 2019.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Massachusetts

S 1036: Heightened penalties for blocking traffic

Would penalize anyone who obstructs or attempts to obstruct "the normal movement of traffic, commerce, or any emergency medical services on a limited access or express state highway" in a manner that is dangerous to the general public. Under the bill, whoever commits this act could be punished up to 10 years in jail. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 22 Jan 2019.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Massachusetts

HB 1588: Prohibition on masked demonstrations

Would compel the immediate dispersal of a demonstration or other assembly of people wearing masks or other disguises. The bill provides that if a group of five or more individuals who are "masked or in any manner disguised by unusual or unnatural attire or facial alteration" assemble together, authorities should command them to disperse. If the assembly does not immediately disperse, they are deemed a riot or unlawful assembly and the authorities can compel anyone present to help "suppress" the assembly and arrest those participating. The bill makes no exception for religious or festive attire. Nor does it require any malicious intent by those assembling or conduct beyond wearing masks and assembling in a group. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 17 Jan 2019.

Issue(s): Face Covering, Riot

return to map
Massachusetts

HB 916: New penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would provide for harsh new penalties for individuals who impede traffic in the course of a protest or demonstration. The bill creates a broad offense of intentionally blocking, obstructing, impeding or otherwise interfering with the "normal and reasonable movement of vehicular or pedestrian traffic" on a public street or highway, punishable by up to $5,000 and a year in jail. Under the bill, police may arrest without a warrant any person they have probable cause to believe has unlawfully impeded traffic. The bill further makes any person convicted of unlawfully impeding traffic liable for the costs incurred by public and/or private emergency services in responding to the incident. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 30 Jun 2017.

Issue(s): Security Costs, Traffic Interference

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
Michigan

HB 4436: New limits on campus protests

Would impose new limits on protests at public colleges and universities. The bill would require all public institutions of higher education to adopt a policy prohibiting protests and demonstrations that "substantially and materially infringe upon the rights of others to engage in or listen to expressive activity," and make protesters involved in such assemblies "subject to sanction." As a result, protests in public areas of campus that, for instance, made it difficult to hear a speech, would be banned and its participants liable to penalties. The policy would apply not only to students and faculty but any other person "lawfully present on campus." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Apr 2019.

Issue(s): Campus Speech

return to map
Michigan

SB 350: Mandatory sanctions for campus protesters

Would create mandatory disciplinary sanctions that could be applied to peaceful protesters on college and university campuses. The bill requires community and public colleges to prohibit and subject to sanction any "protests or demonstrations that infringe upon the rights of others to engage in or listen to expressive activity" on campus. The bill requires that college administrators suspend for at least one year or expel any student who is twice "found responsible for infringing on the expressive rights of others," for instance through a protest or demonstration. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 2 May 2017.

Issue(s): Campus Speech

return to map
Minnesota

HF 3668: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines

Would create new civil and criminal liability for protesters on infrastructure property as well as for any organization or entity that supports them. The bill would make someone who is convicted of or merely arrested for trespassing on property containing a critical public service facility, utility, or pipeline, civilly liable for any property damage arising out of the trespass. Under the bill, a person "or entity" that "recruits, trains, aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with" someone who is convicted of or arrested for trespassing is also civilly liable for damages. The bill creates criminal liability for anyone who "intentionally recruits, trains, aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with" someone to trespass, as well: If the person or entity fails to make a "reasonable effort" to prevent the trespass, and the offense is committed, they are guilty of a gross misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $3,000 fine. The broad language used in the vicarious liability provisions could be construed to include aiding a protester by providing them with water or medical assistance. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 24 Feb 2020.

Issue(s): Damage Costs, Conspiracy, Infrastructure, Trespass

return to map
Minnesota

HF 2966: New Penalties for Protests Near Oil and Gas Pipelines

Would create new civil and criminal liability for protesters on infrastructure property as well as civil liability for any organization or entity that supports them. The bill would make someone who trespasses on property containing a critical public service facility, utility, or pipeline liable for any damages to property that they commit while trespassing. Any person or entity that "knowingly recruits, trains, aids, advises, hires, counsels, [or] conspires with" someone who trespasses or causes damage to property could be held "jointly and severably liable." If the person trespasses with intent "to significantly impede or inhibit operation" of a covered facility, utility, or pipeline they are guilty of a felony and may be subject to three years in prison and/or a $5,000 fine. The phrase "significantly impede or inhibit" could be construed to encompass peaceful protests that block access to infrastructure, which under Minnesota law is broadly defined to include bus stations and parts of bridges. The broad language used in the joint and severable liability provision could be construed to include aiding a protester by providing them with water or medical assistance. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 31 Jan 2020.

Issue(s): Conspiracy, Infrastructure, Trespass

return to map
Minnesota

HF 2441/SF 2011: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines

Would create new potential penalties for protests near pipelines, utilities, and "critical public service facilities." The bill criminalizes trespass onto such properties, including those under construction, as a gross misdemeanor punishable by one year in jail and a $3,000 fine. Trespass "with the intent to disrupt the operation or provision of services" by the pipeline or utility, is a felony under the bill, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The bill also newly provides that a court may order anyone convicted of the above offenses to pay for "the costs and expenses resulting from the crime." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 4 Mar 2019.

Issue(s): Damage Costs, Infrastructure, Security Costs, Trespass

return to map
Minnesota

HF 1383: Mandatory sanctions for campus protesters

Would create mandatory disciplinary sanctions that could be applied to peaceful protesters on college and university campuses. The bill provides that the Board of Trustees of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities must adopt a policy of sanctioning anyone under an institution's jurisdiction who "materially and substantially interferes with the free expression of others." According to the bill, the policy must include that any student who has twice been found guilty of "infringing the expressive rights of others"--for instance, through a protest--will be suspended for at least one year or expelled. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 18 Feb 2019.

Issue(s): Campus Speech

return to map
Minnesota

HF 390: New penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would heighten potential penalties for protesters who intentionally disrupt traffic on a freeway or a roadway on airport property. The version of HF 390 introduced in the 2019-2020 session uses a definition of the offense that is similar to that of HF 390 from the 2017-2018 session, and would result in the same sanctions: 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 provisions would be added to Minnesota statutes on public nuisance, however, rather than those on roads and right-of-way. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 28 Jan 2019.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Minnesota

SF 3463: New penalties for "critical infrastructure" protesters and their supporters

Would have created new civil liability for protesters on infrastructure property, as well as vicarious liability for any individual or organization who supported them. The bill would make someone who trespasses on property containing a "critical public service facility, utility, or pipeline" liable for any damages to persons or property, and any person or entity that "recruits, trains, aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with them" vicariously liable for such damages. Under Minnesota law, a person who trespasses on infrastructure property is guilty of a gross misdemeanor; the bill would make anyone who "recruits, trains, aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with" a trespasser likewise guilty of a gross misdemeanor, which is punishable by one year in jail and a $3,000 fine. If the person trespasses "with the intent to significantly disrupt the operation of or the provision of services" by the facility, the bill would make anyone who "recruits, trains, aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with" the trespasser guilty of a felony and subject to 10 years in prison and a $20,000 fine. The phrase "significantly disrupt" could be construed to encompass peaceful protests that block access to infrastructure, for instance, which under Minnesota law is broadly defined to include bus stations and bridges. The broad terms used in the vicarious liability provisions could even be construed to include aiding a protester by providing them with water or medical assistance. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 12 Mar 2018; Approved by Senate 7 May 2018; Approved by House 19 May 2018; Vetoed by Governor Dayton 30 May 2018

Issue(s): Damage Costs, Conspiracy, Infrastructure, Trespass

return to map
Minnesota

HF 1066/SF 918: Heightened penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would heighten penalties for any individual who "interferes with, obstructs, or renders dangerous for passage" any public highway or any right-of-way within airport property. According to the bill, such interference or obstruction is classified as a public nuisance and a gross misdemeanor, punishable by a $3,000 fine and one year of jail time. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Feb 2017.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Minnesota

HF 896/SF 803: Heightened penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would have increased penalties for protestors who intentionally obstruct highway or public roadway access to airports. Under the bill, such obstruction is classified as a gross misdemeanor rather than a misdemeanor. The bill, an omnibus public safety measure, incorporates language from two previously proposed bills aimed at heightening penalties on protesters. It would have allowed prosecutors to seek a $3,000 fine and one year of jail time for protesters intentionally blocking or interfering with traffic on a highway or public roadway within the boundaries of airport property. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Feb 2017; Vetoed by Governor Dayton 15 May 2017

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Minnesota

HF 322/SF 679: Charging protesters for the cost of responding to a protest

Would allow the state to sue protesters and charge them for the costs of policing a public assembly. The bill gives state agencies, cities, and counties the authority to bring civil lawsuits against people convicted of unlawful assembly or public nuisance. The lawsuits could seek the full cost of responding to the unlawful assembly, including officer time, law enforcement helicopters, and administrative expenses. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 2 Feb 2017.

Issue(s): Security Costs

return to map
Minnesota

HF 390: Heightened penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would have increased penalties for protesters who intentionally obstruct highways or public roadway access to airports, or interfered with a transit operator. Under the bill, the offense of highway or airport access obstruction would have been a gross misdemeanor rather than a misdemeanor, punishable by a $3,000 fine and one year in jail. Provisions added to the bill during the 2018 session--following a high-profile incident in which protesters sat on light-rail tracks--would have broadened the offense of "unlawful interference with a transit operator" to include any act that "restricts passenger access to the transit vehicle." Penalties for that offense would likewise be increased to a $3,000 fine and one year in jail. In his message vetoing the bill, Governor Dayton cited the bill's vague provisions as well as the fact that the offenses were already prohibited and subject to sufficient sanctions under Minnesota law. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 23 Jan 2017; Approved by House 8 May 2018; Approved by Senate 14 May 2018; Vetoed by Governor Dayton 19 May 2018

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Mississippi

HB 763: New legal justification for killing people during protests

Would amend Mississippi's law on "justifiable homicide," creating a new legal justification for homicide when committed in defense of one's own business during a "riot" or "any violent protest." If enacted, the provisions could encourage deadly confrontations at protests. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 18 Jan 2021; Died in committee 2 February 2021

Issue(s): Riot, Stand Your Ground

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): Conspiracy, Driver Immunity, Riot, Traffic Interference, State Liability, Limit on Public Benefits

return to map
Mississippi

SB 2283: New mandatory penalties for protesters who block traffic

As introduced, would create new, mandatory penalties for unpermitted protests that take place on or overflow into streets and highways. Under the introduced bill, 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, is required to be jailed for at least 25 days (and up to one year), and pay at least $500 (and up to $1,500). (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 12 Jan 2021; Approved by Senate 4 February 2021; Died in committee 2 March 2021

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

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): Conspiracy, Driver Immunity, Riot, Traffic Interference, State Liability, Limit on Public Benefits

return to map
Mississippi

SB 2474: New penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would create a new offense of "maliciously impeding traffic on a public road." According to the bill, the obstruction of a public road or highway by a person "sitting, standing, or lying" would be a misdemeanor punishable by a six-month prison sentence or a fine of up to $1,000, or both. Like SB 2730--the version of the bill introduced in the 2017-2018 session--SB 2474 both creates a new offense and expands the scope of its application to include blockages of public roads, not just highways. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 21 Jan 2019; Died in committee 5 February 2019

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Mississippi

SB 2754: New penalties for protests near critical infrastructure

Would create new potential penalties for protests near oil or gas pipelines and other infrastructure facilities, including those under construction. The bill creates two new offenses: "critical infrastructure trespass," and "impeding critical infrastructure." Critical infrastructure trespass is defined in the bill as knowingly entering onto infrastructure property without authorization or not leaving once notified to depart; the bill classifies it as a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of $1,000. "Impeding" critical infrastructure is defined to include "preventing legal access to" a critical infrastructure property or construction site. Under the bill, such impediment is punishable by 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine if the impediment results in $1,000 worth of damage or economic loss. If the damage or loss is less than $1,000, the offense is punishable by six months' imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. The bill also provides that an organization "that aids, abets, solicits, compensates, hires, conspires with, commands or procures" someone to impede critical infrastructure is subject to a $100,000 fine and liable for a civil action by the infrastructure facility. "Critical infrastructure facility" is broadly defined and among many other things includes oil and gas pipelines, refineries, water treatment plants, cell phone towers, and railroad tracks, as well as "[a]ny site where the construction or improvement of any [referenced] facility... is ongoing." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 21 Jan 2019; Approved by Senate 11 Feb 2019

Issue(s): Conspiracy, Infrastructure

return to map
Mississippi

SB 2730: New penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would have created the felony crime of "maliciously impeding traffic on a public road." The obstructing of a public road or highway by a person "sitting, standing, or lying" would be punishable by a five-year prison sentence or a fine of up to $10,000, or both. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 16 Jan 2017; Failed in senate committee 31 Jan 2017

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Missouri

HB 1441: New penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would increase the penalty for obstructing a public street or highway to a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail. A second offense would be a Class E felony, punishable by one to four years in prison. If a person commits "unlawful traffic interference" on an interstate highway, it is a Class E felony, punishable on the first offense by a suspended sentence of probation for five years, 100 hours of community service, and a fine of up to $750. The offense of traffic interference on any public street, highway, or interstate highway while part of an "unlawful assembly" is a class D felony. For a first offence the court shall impose a term of supervised probation of five years, one hundred hours of community service, and a fine of up to $1,000. An "unlawful assembly" is defined under the bill as two or more persons meeting with the purpose of violating any law, such as the prohibition on traffic interference. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 1 Mar 2021.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Missouri

SB 66: New penalties for protesters, and shields for those who commit violence against them

Would introduce a raft of new provisions affecting protesters, including civil immunity for drivers who injure protesters and a new affirmative defense for other acts of violence against protesters. The bill provides that a driver who injures someone who was "blocking traffic in a public right-of way while participating in a protest or demonstration" is not liable for damages, if the driver was "exercising due care." The bill would also expand Missouri's "Stand Your Ground" law, allowing a person to use deadly force against someone who is participating in an "unlawful assembly" and who unlawfully enters or attempts to enter private property that is owned or leased by the person. The bill introduces a series of new penalties for conduct associated with some protests: Protesters who block traffic could be charged with a new felony offense (up to 4 years in prison and a $10,000 fine) for intentionally walking, standing, sitting, kneeling, laying or placing an object in a manner that "blocks passage by a vehicle on any public street, highway, or interstate highway." The offense would be a Class D felony (7 years and $10,000) if committed "as part of an unlawful assembly." Under the bill, a person who "causes emotional distress to another person while participating in an unlawful assembly," is guilty of second-degree harassment, punishable in most cases as a Class E felony (4 years and $10,000). Under the bill, protesters who vandalized, defaced, or otherwise damaged public monuments or structures on public property could be charged with "institutional vandalism," a Class B felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison. Finally, the bill would create a new offense of "conspiring with others to cause or produce a riot or unlawful assembly," defined as knowingly providing payment or "other financial incentive" to six or more people to violate the Missouri laws against rioting or unlawful assembly. The new offense would be a Class E felony (4 years and $10,000). (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 1 Dec 2020.

Issue(s): Conspiracy, Driver Immunity, Riot, Traffic Interference, Trespass

return to map
Missouri

HB 56: Eliminating civil and criminal liability for drivers who hit protesters

Would shield a driver from civil and criminal liability for injuring someone who was participating in an "unlawful or riotous assemblage," if the driver was fleeing from the "unlawful or riotous assemblage" and "reasonably believed" they were in danger. If enacted, the bill would allow a driver to evade civil damages and criminal penalties for intentionally hitting and even killing a protester, if the driver "reasonably believed" they were in any danger. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 1 Dec 2020.

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Riot

return to map
Missouri

SB 9: Heightened penalties for blocking roads

Would criminalize protests that block traffic as "unlawful traffic interference" and provide for harsh penalties. Under the bill, a person's intentional blocking of traffic on a public street or highway, whether with her body or an object, is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and a $2,000 fine. If the offense is repeated, or takes place on an interstate highway, it is a Class E felony, punishable by up to four years in jail and a $10,000 fine. If the offense is committed while the person is part of an unlawful assembly, it is a Class D felony, which is punishable by up to seven years in prison and a $5,000 fine. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 27 Jul 2020.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Missouri

SB 293: New penalties for protests near critical infrastructure

Would heighten potential penalties for protests near oil or gas pipelines and other infrastructure facilities, including those under construction. The bill creates the offense of "willful critical infrastructure trespass," defined as willfully entering property containing a critical infrastructure facility or the construction site of such a facility, without permission of the property's owner or lawful occupant. Under the bill, willful critical infrastructure trespass is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of $1,000. A person who willfully trespasses with the intent to "impede or inhibit" the infrastructure facility or construction site is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of $2,000. The bill also provides that an organization found to be a "conspirator" with anyone convicted of the above offenses is liable to a fine of ten times that levied on the individual. "Critical infrastructure facility" is broadly defined and among many other things includes oil and gas pipelines, refineries, water treatment plants, cell phone towers, and railroad tracks--"whether under construction or operational." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 24 Jan 2019.

Issue(s): Conspiracy, Infrastructure

return to map
Missouri

HB 442: Mandatory sanctions for campus protesters

Would expand the state's 2015 "Campus Free Expression Act" to include provisions requiring universities to impose specific, mandatory penalties on certain campus protesters. The bill--identical to HB 2423, introduced in 2018--provides that any student who is twice found responsible for "infringing upon the expressive rights of others" should be suspended for at least one year or expelled. The bill also calls for a "range of disciplinary sanctions" to be imposed on anyone under the university's jurisdiction who "materially and substantially interferes with the free expression of others." As in HB 2423, HB 442 also waives Missouri's immunity from federal lawsuits related to the law, such that a speaker or student group who feels the law is insufficiently enforced could sue the state and/or university in federal or state court. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Jan 2019.

Issue(s): Campus Speech

return to map
Missouri

HB 288: Expanded definition for "unlawful assembly" and new penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would dramatically increase potential penalties for individuals who protest on public streets or highways, by expanding the definition of "unlawful assembly" and creating the crime of "unlawful traffic interference." The bill broadly defines an "unlawful assembly" as two or more people who meet "for the purpose of violating any of the criminal laws" of Missouri or the U.S. (Current Missouri law requires six people who assemble to violate criminal laws with force or violence.) The bill provides that commission of unlawful traffic interference while participating in an unlawful assembly is a Class D felony, which is subject to up to seven years in prison. Prefiled on December 18, 2018, in advance of the 2019 session, the bill is substantially the same as the expired bill HB 2145, but would make a first offense of unlawful traffic interference while participating in an unlawful assembly subject to a suspended sentence, with supervised probation for five years, 100 hours of community service, and a fine of up to $1,000. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 4 Jan 2019.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Missouri

HB 2423: Mandatory sanctions for campus protesters

Would expand the state's 2015 "Campus Free Expression Act," which banned so-called campus "free speech zones," to include provisions requiring universities to impose specific, mandatory penalties on certain campus protesters. The bill provides that any student who is twice found responsible for "infringing upon the expressive rights of others" should be suspended for at least one year or expelled. The bill also calls for a "range of disciplinary sanctions" to be imposed on anyone under the university's jurisdiction who "materially and substantially interferes with the free expression of others." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 8 Feb 2018.

Issue(s): Campus Speech

return to map
Missouri

HB 2145: Expanded definition for "unlawful assembly" and new penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would broadly define an "unlawful assembly" as two or more people who meet "for the purpose of violating any of the criminal laws" of Missouri or the U.S. The bill also creates a new crime of "unlawful traffic interference" that encompasses walking, sitting, standing, lying down, or placing an object on any public roadway with the intention of impeding traffic. The bill provides that commission of "unlawful traffic interference" while participating in an "unlawful assembly" is a Class D felony, which is subject to up to seven years in prison. The bill was originally introduced on February 2, 2017 as HB 826. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 17 Jan 2018.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Missouri

SB 813: Heightened penalties for protesters who block highways

Would impose steeper penalties, including jail time, for protesters who block highways or emergency medical vehicles. The bill makes the offense of "peace disturbance" by obstructing traffic--already a Class B misdemeanor under Missouri law--a Class A misdemeanor on first offense if occurring on an interstate highway or thruway of an emergency medical services vehicle. Commission of the offense is subject to an automatic fine of up to $5,000 or 7-30 days in jail. The bill would also make offenders civilly liable to any person harmed, for monetary damages. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 3 Jan 2018.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Missouri

HB 1259: Heightened penalties for blocking traffic

Would criminalize protests that block traffic as "unlawful traffic interference" and provide for harsh penalties. Under the bill, a person's intentional blocking of traffic on a public street or highway, whether with her body or an object, is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine. If the offense is repeated, or takes place on an interstate highway, it may be charged as a Class E felony. If the offense is committed while the person is part of an "unlawful assembly" (defined as "two or more persons who meet for the purpose of violating any of the criminal laws" of Missouri or the US), it is a Class D felony, punishable by up to four years in prison and a $5,000 fine. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 1 Dec 2017.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Missouri

HB 179: New penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

Would criminalize intentionally concealing one's identity while participating in an "unlawful assembly" or rioting. Under the bill, a person who intentionally conceals his or her identity "by the means of a robe, mask, or other disguise" while engaged in an unlawful assembly could be charged with a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail. The bill exempts identity-concealing coverings for the purposes of religion, safety, or medical needs. The Missouri legislature's website indicates that wearing a "hood" would also be included in criminalized coverings, although this language does not appear in the current wording of the bill. The bill expired with the end of the 2017 legislative session. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 4 Jan 2017.

Issue(s): Face Covering

return to map
Montana

HB 571: Harsh penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

Would make it a felony offense to conceal one's identity by wearing a mask for the purpose of avoiding identification while committing an offense against public order. Concealing one's identity in this situation is punishable by up to five years in jail or a fine of $5,000. In Montana, an offense against the public order includes minor and broadly defined crimes like creating a public nuisance or disorderly conduct, meaning a protester who wore a mask and was charged with one of these crimes could also face a felony offense under this bill. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 27 Feb 2017.

Issue(s): Face Covering

return to map
Nevada

AB 168: New felony penalties for unlawful protests and protests that block traffic, as well as penalties for protest funders and organizers

Would impose Class E felony penalties for participating in an "assembly to disturb the public peace," an "unlawful assembly," a "rout," or a "riot," if committed by a group of seven or more people. Under current Nevada law, all four offenses are misdemeanors if committed by two or more people. An "unlawful assembly," for instance, is defined as two or more people who meet to do an unlawful act, but disperse without doing it. Under the bill, a group of seven who do so are guilty of a Class E felony, punishable by at least one and up to 4 years in prison. The bill would also increase the penalty for obstructing any road, street, or alley, from a misdemeanor to a Class E felony, if it occurs during an "assembly to disturb the public peace," an "unlawful assembly," a "rout" or a "riot." Under the bill, a driver who injures or kills someone who was unlawfully obstructing a road, street or alley during an "assembly to disturb the public peace," an "unlawful assembly," a "rout" or a "riot," would not be civilly liable if they were exercising "due care." Under the bill, it would also be a Class E felony instead of a gross misdemeanor to vandalize, place graffiti on or otherwise deface property if committed during a "riot." The bill creates a new Class E felony offense for knowingly or intentionally providing "material support" with the intent that the support will be used in or for an "assembly to disturb the public peace," an "unlawful assembly," or a "rout" or "riot." "Material support" is broadly defined to include “any financial, logistical, informational or other support or assistance," such that someone who gives directions to someone in a 3-person "unlawful assembly" could face felony charges.The bill would also expand Nevada's racketeering law, to cover racketeering activity in furtherance of an "assembly to disturb the public peace," an "unlawful assembly," a "rout" or a "riot," resulting in potential new penalties for protest organizers. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 23 Feb 2021.

Issue(s): Conspiracy, Driver Immunity, Riot, Traffic Interference

return to map
New Jersey

A 5731: Mandatory penalties for campus protesters

Would create mandatory disciplinary sanctions that could be applied to peaceful protesters on college and university campuses. The bill requires all public institutions of higher education to adopt a policy that bars members of the campus community from engaging in conduct that "materially and substantially disrupts another person's expressive activity or infringes on the rights of others to engage in or listen to expressive activity." Under the required policy, any member of the campus community that has twice materially and substantially disrupted the expressive rights of others--such as by protesting a controversial speaker--must be given a minimum punishment of a one-term suspension. If a lesser punishment is imposed, the institution has to submit an explanation in writing to the institution's Committee on Free Expression. The bill also requires that "a range of disciplinary sanctions" be imposed for anyone under the jurisdiction of the institution who materially and substantially disrupts the free expression of others. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 23 Aug 2019.

Issue(s): Campus Speech

return to map
New Jersey

AB 4777: Expanded definition of "riot"

Would expand the definition of "riot" to include group conduct that damages property. Under the bill, an individual's participation in "disorderly conduct" with four or more people that results in property damage or monetary loss would constitute a riot. The bill provides that, if such damage or loss is greater than $2,000, the offense is a third-degree crime, punishable by three to five years in prison and a fine of up to $15,000. Further, the bill would require that an individual convicted of riot under the new provision would have to reimburse the individual property owner or the state of New Jersey for damages incurred as a result of the riot. The bill expired with the end of the 2017 legislative session. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 11 May 2017.

Issue(s): Damage Costs, Riot

return to map
New York

A 11069: Heightened Penalties for Riot and Incitement to Riot

Would enhance the penalties for first and second degree "riot" as well as "incitement to riot." Under New York Law, "incitement to riot" is broadly defined, and could cover a person or organization found to have "urged" a group of people to protest in a "tumultuous and violent" way. The bill would make the offense a Class E felony, punishable by up to four years in prison, instead of a Class A misdemeanor. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 7 Oct 2020.

Issue(s): Riot

return to map
New York

A 10603: Heightened penalties for "riot" and "incitement to riot" by non-residents

Would heighten the penalties for "riot" and "incitement to riot" for defendants who are not New York residents, by creating two new criminal offenses. Under the bill, a non-resident who either commits "riot in the second degree" or "incitement to riot" is guilty of "travel to riot in the second degree," a Class E felony. Notably, New York law broadly defines "riot in the second degree" to include "tumultuous and violent conduct" with four or more people that "intentionally or recklessly...creates a grave risk of causing public alarm." A person is guilty of "incitement to riot" under New York law if he or she "urges" ten or more people "to engage in tumultuous and violent conduct of a kind likely to create public alarm." The bill creates an additional Class D felony for non-residents who commit first-degree riot. The bill was proposed after widespread protests in New York City following the killing of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 5 Jun 2020.

Issue(s): Riot

return to map
North Carolina

HB 805: Heightened penalties for "riot" and related offenses

Would increase the penalty for an individual who engages in a "riot" if, "as a result of the riot," there is over $1,500 of property damage or serious bodily injury. Under this definition, the individual could be convicted of a Class F felony without having any role in property damage or injury. The bill increases the potential prison sentence from 25 months to 41 months. North Carolina law defines riot to include a "public disturbance" by a group of three or more people that presents an "imminent threat of disorderly and violent conduct," resulting in a "clear and present danger" of property damage or injury. In other words, no violence or damage need occur for participants in a gathering to be arrested for and charged with "riot." The bill also increases the penalty for an individual who "incites or urges another to engage in a riot," to a Class A1 misdemeanor, punishable by 5 months in jail, if a riot actually occurs or a "clear and present danger of a riot is created." If the riot does occur and results in $1,500 of property damage or injury (again, regardless of the individual's role), the individual is guilty of a Class E felony, punishable by up to 63 months in jail. Under the bill, an individual convicted of "riot" or incitement offenses is also liable to anyone whose property or person was damaged by the riot, in the amount of three times the actual damage in addition to court costs and attorney"s fees. Finally, the bill requires that a judge, rather than another judicial official, determine the pretrial release of an individual charged with a riot offense. The judge may hold the individual for 48 hours, and may require that they stay away from places where the "riot" occurred. Note that a later version of this bill amended the language so that to be convicted of Class F felony rioting one personally would need to cause property damage of over $1,500 or serious bodily injury. However, one could still be civilly liable for property damage or injury one did not cause. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 3 May 2021; Approved by House 10 May 2021; Approved by Senate 31 August 2021; Governor Veto 10 September 2021

Issue(s): Damage Costs, Riot

return to map
North Carolina

SB 335: Heightened penalties for protesters who disrupt meetings

Would expand disorderly conduct to include disturbing the peace or order of an official meeting of a public body. A first offense would be a class one misdemeanor punishable by up to 120 days in jail. A second offense would be a Class 1 felony punishable by 3 to 12 months in jail. A third or subsequent offense would be a Class H felony punishable by 8 to 31 months in jail. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 23 Mar 2021.

return to map
North Carolina

HB 333: New penalties for campus protesters

Would require that a student who is found to have engaged in certain activity during a protest on a public university campus both be expelled and have their state financial aid revoked for at least one academic period. Covered activity includes anyone who "unlawfully write[s] or scribble[s] on, mark[s], deface[s], besmear[s], or injure[s] the walls of any public building," statue, or monument, as well as anyone who willfully damages public or private property of any kind on campus. As such, a student could be automatically expelled and lose financial aid for chalking a wall during a protest. Eligibility for readmission and reinstatement of aid would be based on restitution for the property damage committed by the student. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 17 Mar 2021.

Issue(s): Campus Speech

return to map
North Carolina

HB 321: Criminal and civil penalties for officials who withdraw police during protests

Would create new penalties for government officials who try to "stand down" police, including in response to protests and demonstrations. The bill broadly prohibits any elected official from "interfer[ing]" with law enforcement officers by causing or "attempt[ing] to cause" them not to enforce the law or not to defend persons or property. The bill's broad language could bar, for instance, a mayor from publicly encouraging police to respect protesters' rights and not use excessive force. Under the bill, an official who "interferes" with law enforcement in this way is subject to a $10,000 fine "per incident" and up to 30 days in jail. The bill also waives officials' immunity to civil suits in such cases if their "interference" with law enforcement's deployment results in property damage or personal injury. The bill provides that law enforcement officers are immune from civil and criminal penalties if they kill or injure another person "using reasonable force under the circumstances and acting in good faith to enforce the laws" of North Carolina. If enacted, these provisions could undermine local officials' ability to participate in decisions around the policing of protests and could incentivize aggressive police responses. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 16 Mar 2021.

Issue(s): Police Response, State Liability

return to map
North Carolina

SB 238: Local government liability for lax law enforcement response to protests

Would open the door to lawsuits against local government entities that withhold or delay law enforcement services during a protest. The bill prohibits mayors, city councils, county commissions, and any other "government entity" from "prevent[ing]" or "delay[ing]" law enforcement from accessing an area during a "public demonstration." Under the bill, government entities that violate the prohibition may be held liable for damages proximately caused by the withholding or delaying of law enforcement. If enacted, the bill would require local governments to immediately deploy law enforcement to all protests and demonstrations, or risk a costly lawsuit. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 10 Mar 2021.

Issue(s): Police Response, State Liability

return to map
North Carolina

HB 966: Limitations on teachers' ability to protest

Would restrict public school teachers' ability to use personal leave in order to protest. The provisions, proposed as part of a budget package, would prohibit schools from granting teachers leave on a school day unless they could confirm that a substitute teacher was available. Lawmakers introduced the provisions ahead of a Wednesday, May 1 rally expected to be attended by thousands of teachers from across the state, to protest for increased education funding.

Note: This provision teachers' personal leave was attached to an appropriations bill. The bill eventually was enacted, but this provision was removed in its entirety. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 26 Apr 2019.

Issue(s): Strikes

return to map
North Carolina

HB 330: Eliminating driver liability for hitting protesters

Would eliminate civil liability for the driver of an automobile who hits or otherwise injures a person participating in a protest or demonstration, if the person was blocking traffic in a public street or highway and did not have a permit to do so, and if the driver was exercising "due care." Civil liability is still available to the injured party if the driver acted intentionally. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 13 Mar 2017; Approved by House 27 April

Issue(s): Driver Immunity

return to map
North Carolina

SB 229: Heightened penalties for threats against former officials

Would substantially increase penalties for threats and assaults against former North Carolina officials on account of the official's performance. The bill extends by one year the term of office of former executive, legislative, and court officials for the purpose of criminal provisions related to assaults and threats made against officials that are in office. Accordingly, threatening to inflict serious injury on a former official would be classified as a Class I felony - rather than a misdemeanor - for a period of one year after the official's term in office. The offense would be subject to up to two years in prison. The bill was sponsored by State Senator Dan Bishop, who had pledged to introduce such legislation after an incident over Inauguration weekend in which protesters shouted at a former North Carolina governor, Pat McCrory, in Washington, D.C. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Mar 2017.

return to map
North Carolina

HB 249: Criminalizing certain protests as "economic terrorism"

Would have targeted protests that obstruct roadways by newly criminalizing "economic terrorism," defined as the willful or reckless commission of a criminal offense that impedes or disrupts the regular course of business and results in damages of over $1,000. Per the bill, commission of economic terrorism is a Class H felony, punishable by 4 to 25 months in prison. The bill also makes an individual participant civilly liable for the costs incurred by the state in responding to an unlawful assembly, riot, or obstruction of traffic (e.g., during a protest); the individual could be charged in a civil action for related legal, administrative, and court costs as well. Criminal penalties are heightened for individuals who obstruct traffic by standing, sitting, or lying in a street or highway, as well as for those who remain at the scene of a riot or unlawful assembly after being warned to disperse; under the bill, both are punishable by up to 150 days in jail and a discretionary fine. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 2 Mar 2017; Failed in committee 25 April 2017

Issue(s): Security Costs, Terrorism, Traffic Interference

return to map
North Dakota

HB 1240: Restitution penalty for offenses related to "riot"

Would permit a court to order restitution as an additional penalty for riot-related offenses. Under the bill, a person guilty of engaging in or inciting a "riot," or failure to obey law enforcement's orders "during a riot," may be ordered to make restitution for any property "damaged or destroyed in the course of the riot." The bill does not require that a restitution order be linked to an individual's direct responsibility for the damaged property. A bystander at the scene of a protest that was deemed a "riot," for instance, who does not comply with a police officer's orders, could face not only up to one year in jail (the penalty under current law) but also be charged with the cost of replacing property that was damaged by other protesters. "Riot" is defined under North Dakota law as a "public disturbance involving an assemblage of five or more persons which by tumultuous and violent conduct creates grave danger of damage or injury to property or persons or substantially obstructs law enforcement or other government function." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 11 Jan 2021; Failed to pass House 10 February 2021

Issue(s): Damage Costs, Riot

return to map
North Dakota

HB 1203: Eliminating driver liability for hitting protesters

Would have eliminated the liability of a motorist who causes "injury or death to an individual obstructing vehicular traffic on a public road, street, or highway," as long as the motorist did so unintentionally. Under the bill, such a motorist would not be liable for any damages nor guilty of an offense. Accordingly, the bill would allow motorists to strike and even kill protesters without liability as long as the collision was negligent or accidental. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 16 Jan 2017; Failed in House on 13 Feb 2017

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Traffic Interference

return to map
North Dakota

HB 1193: Expanding Traffic Interference to Commercial Activity and Creating a New Crime of Causing Economic Harm

Would expand traffic interference to include obstructing a private facility or private commercial equipment. Would also create a new Class C felony offense of committing a misdemeanor with the intent to cause "economic harm" of greater than $1,000 to the government or a private individual. Economic harm does not include law enforcement costs and the law does not apply to constitutionally protected activity. A Class C felony is punishable by up to five years in jail or a $10,000 fine. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Jan 2017; Passed by House 2 February 2017; Failed to Pass Senate 28 March 2017

Issue(s): Damage Costs, Traffic Interference

return to map
Ohio

HB 784: Excusing use of deadly force against protesters and heightening penalties for road-blocking protests

The bill would create a new civil and criminal defense for anyone who uses force, including deadly force, to escape from a "riot." The bill would excuse a person who "reasonably believes" they are in danger of imminent injury from a riot, from taking "any steps necessary to flee," and would justify their "using or threatening to use reasonable force, including deadly force, to escape." The provision could encourage the use of violence against protesters. The bill would also create steep new penalties for interfering with or blocking traffic during an unpermitted protest. "Hindering or preventing movement" of persons on roads (a minor misdemeanor under current law) would become a third degree felony, punishable by up to 3 years in prison and $10,000, if it occurred during a protest that had not received a permit, or a protest that exceeded its issued permit. The bill would also enable law enforcement officers to sue protesters and any organizational supporters of protests if the officers suffered injury or property damage as a result of a riot. Ohio law defines "riot" to include engaging in "disorderly conduct" (including "recklessly caus[ing] inconvenience [or] annoyance") with four or more persons "to hinder, impede, or obstruct a function of government" - definition broad enough to cover peaceful protests. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Nov 2020.

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Riot, Traffic Interference, Stand Your Ground

return to map
Ohio

HB 362: New penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

Would broadly prohibit the wearing of masks or other disguises in certain circumstances during protests. Like HB 423, introduced in the 2017-2018 session, the bill criminalizes the wearing of a mask or disguise to intentionally "obstruct the execution of the law," "to intimidate, hinder, or interrupt" a person who is performing a legal duty, or to prevent a person from exercising rights granted to them by the Constitution or laws of Ohio (such as the right to assemble). Under the bill, commission of "masked intimidation" as defined by any of the above would be a first degree misdemeanor, subject to up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. According to its sponsors, the bill originated out of concerns about violent confrontations caused by masked protesters. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 8 Oct 2019.

Issue(s): Face Covering

return to map
Ohio

SB 250: New penalties for protests near "critical infrastructure"

Would heighten the penalties for protests near oil and gas pipelines and other infrastructure by expanding the definitions of "criminal trespass" and "criminal mischief." Entering and remaining on marked or fenced-off property that contains a "critical infrastructure facility" would be criminal trespass under the bill and could be charged as a first degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. Doing so with the purpose of tampering with or harming the facility would constitute aggravated trespass, a third degree felony; knowingly tampering with the facility would constitute "criminal mischief" and a first degree felony--punishable by up to ten years in prison and a $20,000 fine. "Critical infrastructure facility" is expansively defined to encompass oil, gas, electric, water, telecommunications, and railroad facilities among many others. The bill also imposes fines on organizations found to be complicit in the trespass or mischief offenses, and imposes civil liability for damage caused by trespass on a critical infrastructure facility. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 24 Jan 2018; Approved by Senate 6 December 2018

Issue(s): Damage Costs, Infrastructure, Trespass

return to map
Oklahoma

SB 592: Steep fee for protesting at the state capitol

Would require any group of 100 or more people that engage in a protest at the Oklahoma capitol building to post a $50,000 bond to the Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority "to offset the cost of additional security, cleanup and repairs." The bill was prefiled and is scheduled to be introduced on February 4, 2019, when the state's legislative session begins. The bill follows the walkout and multi-day protest by thousands of Oklahoma's teachers at the capitol in April 2018. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 18 Jan 2019.

Issue(s): Damage Costs, Security Costs, Strikes

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
Oregon

HB 4126: Harsh penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

Would make it a Class B felony to "partially or fully conceal[]" one's face while engaged in a riot, in order to "facilitate commission" of the riot. A Class B felony in Oregon is punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The bill would also direct courts to consider an individual's concealment of their face an aggravating factor during sentencing. Under Oregon law, a person can be convicted of rioting if "while participating with five or more other persons the person engages in tumultuous and violent conduct and thereby intentionally or recklessly creates a grave risk of causing public alarm." Given the vagueness of the underlying riot definition, extreme penalties such as those envisioned in the bill could have a chilling effect on nonviolent protesters who want to remain anonymous or use a mask to make a political or social statement. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 28 Jan 2020.

Issue(s): Face Covering, Riot

return to map
Oregon

SB 540: Mandatory expulsion for college students convicted of rioting

Would require that public universities and community colleges expel a student who is convicted of participating in a riot. The bill expired with the end of the 2017 legislative session. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Jan 2017.

Issue(s): Campus Speech, Riot

return to map
Pennsylvania

SB 887: New penalties for protests near "critical infrastructure"

Would heighten potential penalties for protests near oil and gas pipelines and other critical infrastructure by creating a new offense of "critical infrastructure facility trespass." According to the bill, entering or merely attempting to enter property containing a critical infrastructure facility, without permission of the property owner, would be a third degree felony punishable by up to one year in prison; remaining at the facility after being ordered to leave would be a second degree felony, likewise punishable by up to one year in prison. Entering a critical infrastructure facility with the intent to "damage, destroy, vandalize, deface, tamper with equipment or impede or inhibit operations of the facility," would be a second degree felony punishable by imprisonment for up to one year. It would also be a second degree felony, subject to one year's imprisonment, to "conspire[] with another person to commit" any of the above offences. An individual who commits any of the offenses a second time would face penalties of the next felony degree. The law newly defines "critical infrastructure facility" under Pennsylvania law to include a broad range of oil, gas, electric, water, telecommunications, and railroad facilities, such as gas and oil pipelines "buried or above ground." The definition of "critical infrastructure facility" applies to facilities "constructed or under construction," and includes "equipment and machinery, regardless of whether stored on location or at a storage yard, to the extent that it is used to construct a critical infrastructure facility." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 7 Oct 2019.

Issue(s): Conspiracy, Infrastructure, Trespass

return to map
Pennsylvania

SB 323: Charging protesters for the costs of responding to a protest

Would make individual protesters potentially liable for "public safety response costs" incurred by the state or a political subdivision during a protest or demonstration. Like SB 176, introduced in the 2017-2018 session, the bill allows local authorities to seek restitution from protesters convicted of a misdemeanor or felony in the course of a protest or demonstration, in order to pay for the costs of responding to the event. Such costs could include outlays for police, fire department, and medical services, as well as "related legal, administrative, and court expenses." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 22 Feb 2019.

Issue(s): Security Costs

return to map
Pennsylvania

SB 754: Charging protesters for the costs of responding to a protest

Would make individual protesters potentially liable for "public safety response costs" incurred by the state or "political subdivision" during a protest or rally. The bill allows local authorities to seek restitution from protesters convicted of a misdemeanor or felony in the course of a protest or demonstration, in order to pay for the costs of responding to the event. Such costs could include overtime for police officers and emergency medical services, as well as "related legal, administrative, and court expenses." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 16 Aug 2017.

Issue(s): Security Costs

return to map
Pennsylvania

SB 652: Heightened penalties for protests near critical infrastructure

Would heighten potential penalties for protests around critical infrastructure such as gas and oil pipelines by providing for the crime of "criminal trespass" onto a critical infrastructure facility. Under the bill, it is a felony to enter a critical infrastructure facility "with the intent to willfully damage, destroy, vandalize, deface, tamper with equipment or impede or inhibit the operations of the facility." The bill broadly defines "critical infrastructure facility" to include natural gas facilities and pipelines, "whether constructed or under construction," as well as "equipment and machinery, regardless of location, to the extent that it is used to construct, maintain, or operate a critical infrastructure facility." Other facilities considered critical infrastructure include cell phone towers, telephone poles, and railroad tracks that are fenced off or posted as no-entry areas. Under the bill, entering such an area with the intent to cause damage or disruption is a second-degree felony. An individual who "conspires" to do so commits a first-degree felony.

The bill was substantially amended on 25 September 2018, including to significantly expand the definition of "critical infrastructure facility." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 25 Apr 2017; Approved by Senate 23 May 2018

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass

return to map
Rhode Island

SB 404: Mandatory penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would create mandatory penalties for knowingly or recklessly interfering with traffic on a highway. Under the bill, a first offense is a felony requiring a mandatory sentence of at least one year, with no option for parole until after 60 days, and a maximum of 3 years. A second offence is a felony with a mandatory minimum sentence of at least 3 years, with no option for parole until after one year, and a maximum of 5 years. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 25 Feb 2021.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Rhode Island

HB 5001: New penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would introduce new felony penalties for protesters who block highway traffic. The bill creates a new unlawful "interference with traffic" offense for anyone who "stands, sits, kneels, or otherwise loiters" on a highway, causing "obstruction, distraction, or delay" of any motorist. The offense is a felony, punishable by a minimum of one and up to 3 years in prison. A second conviction for the offense is punishable by at least 3 and up to 5 years, and a third conviction is punishable by at least 5 and up to 10 years. If the interference causes the "obstruction, distraction, or delay" of an emergency vehicle, and results in death, anyone convicted of participating in the interference will be sentenced to at least 5 and up to 30 years in prison. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 8 Jan 2021.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Rhode Island

H 7543: New Penalties for Protesters Who Conceal Their Identity

Would make it unlawful for a person to wear protective equipment, such as a "gas mask", "kneepads", "riot helmets", "face visors", or "vests" during a demonstration, rally, or parade. It also bans wearing "a mask or disguise with the specific intent to intimidate or threaten another person". A violation of the Act would be punishable by up to one year in jail and/or a $1000 fine. The broad language in the Act could be used to ban a range of masks and equipment that could be part of the expressive component of a demonstration. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 12 Feb 2020.

Issue(s): Face Covering

return to map
Rhode Island

HB 5690: Eliminating driver liability for hitting protesters

Would eliminate civil liability for the driver of an automobile who hits or otherwise injures a person participating in a protest or demonstration, if the protest or demonstration was blocking traffic and the driver was exercising "due care." Civil liability remains if the driver's actions were intentional. The bill expired with the end of the 2017 legislative session. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 1 Mar 2017.

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Traffic Interference

return to map
South Carolina

HB 5045: New penalties for non-student protesters on school and college campuses

Would make it a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $2,000 fine, for a person who is not a student to "willfully interfere with, disrupt, or disturb the normal operations of a school or college" by entering the grounds of an educational institution without permission; being "loud or boisterous" after being instructed not to be; refusing to vacate a building, facility, or grounds of a public or private education facility after being directed to do so; engaging in "sitting, kneeling, lying down, or inclining" so as to obstruct an ingress after being told not to; or disrupting teaching or engaging in conduct that disturbs the peace at an educational institution or grounds adjacent to it. The bill would not only cover members of the public, but also faculty, staff, and affiliates of the educational institution who are not students. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 29 Jan 2020.

Issue(s): Campus Speech

return to map
South Carolina

SB 33: Mandatory sanctions for campus protesters

Would create mandatory disciplinary sanctions that could be applied to peaceful protesters on college and university campuses. The bill requires public universities and community colleges to adopt a policy prohibiting and subjecting to sanction any "[p]rotests and demonstrations that materially and substantially infringe upon the rights of others to engage in or listen to expressive activity" on campus. Additionally, the bill requires administrators to suspend for at least one year or expel any student who is twice "found responsible for infringing on the expressive rights of others," such as through a protest of a campus speaker. The bill also waives South Carolina's immunity from federal lawsuits related to the law, such that a speaker or student group who feels the law is insufficiently enforced could sue the state and/or university in federal or state court. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 8 Jan 2019.

Issue(s): Campus Speech, State Liability

return to map
South Dakota

HB 1288: New Powers to Suspend State Agency Rules during Protests

Would add "protests" and "disorderly conduct" to a list of disasters that could allow the Governor to suspend the rules of a state agency. Under the bill, the Governor could suspend the rules of any state agency if there is an emergency beyond local government capacity and the provisions of the rule would in "any way prevent, hinder, or delay necessary action" in managing protests or disorderly conduct. In South Dakota, "disorderly conduct" includes "making unreasonable noise" or obstructing vehicular or pedestrian traffic. This change would make it easier for the Governor to suspend state agency rules in response to protests. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 6 Feb 2020.

Issue(s): State of Emergency, Traffic Interference

return to map
Tennessee

SB 1750: New penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

Would penalize protesters who wear masks or other face coverings. As introduced, the bill would make it a criminal offense for a person to wear a mask, hood, or device that covers a portion of their face and intentionally conceals their identity, on public property or private property without the owner's permission. The bill does not require that the person be committing some other unlawful act while concealing their identity. The offense would be a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $2,500 fine. The original version of the bill includes four exemptions: "traditional holiday costumes;" "lawfully engag[ing] in a trade, profession, occupation or sporting activity" that requires a mask, hood, or other device; theatrical productions, parades, and masquerade balls; and gas masks. Other expressive, First Amendment activity is not explicitly exempted. The bill was withdrawn the day after it was introduced. A co-sponsor of the bill said that it was "intended to target protesters and demonstrators who might commit crimes," and that they would file a "clarified version" of the bill soon. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 21 Jan 2020.

Issue(s): Face Covering

return to map
Tennessee

HB 0668/SB 0944: Eliminating driver liability for hitting protesters

Would have provided civil immunity for a motorist who injures a protester who was blocking traffic in a public right-of-way if the driver was exercising "due care." The bill, introduced in both the Tennessee House of Representatives and Senate, does not eliminate liability if the driver"s actions were "willful or wanton." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Feb 2017; Failed in committee 22 March 2017

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Traffic Interference

return to map
Texas

SB 2229: New penalties for protests near critical infrastructure

Would revise criminal trespass and mischief law in Texas such that individuals and organizations involved in protests on infrastructure sites could be subject to harsh new penalties. The bill would create a new offense of trespass on critical infrastructure "with the intent to either damage, destroy, deface or tamper with" or the intent to "impede or inhibit the operations" of a facility. Accordingly, protesters who sought to peacefully demonstrate on a posted infrastructure facility such as a pipeline, with the intent to disrupt its operations, could be prosecuted. The offense would be a state jail felony punishable by one year in jail and a fine of up to $10,000. The bill would also newly criminalize critical infrastructure mischief, defined to include defacing an infrastructure facility, and make it a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison and a $100,000 fine. Under the bill, an organization found guilty of either offense would be subject to a fine of ten times the maximum fine imposed on an individual--i.e., $100,000 for trespass, and $1,000,000 for mischief. The bill would expand the current definition of "critical infrastructure" under Texas law to include not only facilities that are completely enclosed by fencing but also property that is posted with signs that are "reasonably likely" to be seen. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 8 Mar 2019.

Issue(s): Conspiracy, Infrastructure, Trespass

return to map
Texas

HB 2100: Mandatory sanctions for campus protesters

Would create mandatory disciplinary sanctions that could be applied to peaceful protesters on college and university campuses. The bill was amended after it was introduced, to require public colleges and universities to adopt a policy establishing disciplinary sanctions for students or student groups who "materially and substantially interfere with the rights of others to engage in, observe, or listen to expressive activities on campus." "Materially and substantially interfere" is not defined. According to the requisite policy, any student found to have twice interfered with another's "expressive activities," for instance through a protest, must be suspended for at least one semester. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 8 Mar 2019; Approved by House 30 April 2019

Issue(s): Campus Speech

return to map
Texas

HB 250: Eliminating driver liability for hitting protesters

Would eliminate civil liability for the driver of an automobile who hits or otherwise injures a person who was participating in a protest or demonstration that blocked traffic, if the driver was exercising "due care." The driver may still be civilly liable if his action was grossly negligent. Bill 250 expired with the end of the 2017 legislative session. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 20 Jul 2017.

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Traffic Interference

return to map
Utah

SB 138: New penalties for protesters who block traffic and immunity for drivers who injure them

Would institute new felony penalties for anyone found guilty of "riot" who intentionally "obstructed" traffic. The offense would be a third degree felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison. The bill's revised definition of "riot," while somewhat narrower than existing law, would still be broad enough to cover protests by three or more people where no violence or property destruction was committed. The bill provides that anyone charged with "riot" may be denied bail. Under the bill, anyone convicted on felony "riot" charges may not be employed by any state or local government entity for five years after the conviction; they also may not receive any state employment benefits during that time. The bill would also eliminate criminal and civil liability of a driver who unintentionally injured or killed someone near a protest. Under the bill, a driver would not be criminally or civilly liable if he injured or killed someone while "fleeing from a riot," believing that fleeing was necessary to avoid injury and exercising "due care" in doing so. These provisions, if enacted, could encourage reckless driving near protesters and injuries as a result. Finally, the bill waives a local government's immunity from a lawsuit for instances of "grossly negligent conduct" in which an employee failed to protect property or individuals during a "riot" or "violent assembly." If enacted, these provisions could encourage municipal governments to adopt overly aggressive law enforcement responses to protests in order to avoid lawsuits. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 28 Jan 2021; Approved by Senate 24 February 2021; Expired with end of session 5 March 2021

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Riot, Traffic Interference, State Liability

return to map
Virginia

SB 1308: New penalties for protests on highways

Would heighten penalties for protesters who intentionally disrupt highway traffic. The bill creates a new Class 1 misdemeanor offense, punishable by one year in jail, for "intentionally interfer[ing] with the orderly passage of vehicles" on highways. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 12 Jan 2021.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Virginia

SB 5079: New civil liability for law enforcement agencies that "stand down" during a riot or unlawful assembly

Would allow someone who is injured or sustains any property damage to sue the director of a law enforcement agency, if the person's injuries or damage were incurred as a result of the director ordering law enforcement officers not to take action in response to a riot or unlawful assembly. The bill provides that, in such lawsuits, a plaintiff may recover compensatory damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney fees and costs, including costs and reasonable fees for expert witnesses. If enacted, the bill's proposal would create incentives for law enforcement to use more aggressive, provocative tactics against protesters, including peaceful protesters, in order to avoid a costly lawsuit. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 17 Aug 2020; Expired with end of 2021 legislative session

Issue(s): Damage Costs, Police Response, Riot, State Liability

return to map
Virginia

SB 5056: Heightened penalties for remaining at an unlawful assembly or riot

This bill is a combination of earlier bills, ranging from SB 5057 to SB 5062. It would increase the criminal penalty for remaining at the place of a declared "unlawful assembly" or "riot" after having been lawfully warned to disperse. The penalty would be a Class 1, rather than Class 3 misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $2,500 fine. Virginia law defines "unlawful assembly" broadly, to include a gathering of three or more people that "tends to inspire" a "well-grounded fear of serious and immediate breaches of public safety, peace or order." Peaceful protesters who failed to leave the scene of such a gathering, after being ordered to do so, could accordingly face up to one year in jail. The bill also would increase the penalty for obstructing emergency medical services after having been requested to move to a class 2 misdemeanor as well as make it a class 3 misdemeanor to "curse" law enforcement officers performing their assigned duties. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 17 Aug 2020; Expired with end of 2021 legislative session

Issue(s): Riot

return to map
Virginia

SB 5074: New penalties for protests that block emergency vehicles

Would heighten existing penalties for anyone who "unreasonably or unnecessarily obstructs the delivery of emergency medical services," or who "refuses to cease such obstruction or move on when requested to do so" from a Class 2 misdemeanor to a Class 6 felony, if the violation occurs at the site of a riot or unlawful assembly. Virginia law defines "unlawful assembly" broadly, to include a gathering of three or more people that "tends to inspire" a "well-grounded fear of serious and immediate breaches of public safety, peace or order." Under the bill, participants in a peaceful street protest who failed or were unable to make way for emergency vehicles, for instance, could face felony charges if their gathering was deemed to be an "unlawful assembly." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 17 Aug 2020; Expired with end of 2021 legislative session

Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference

return to map
Virginia

HB 1601: Banning protests by members of domestic terrorist groups

Would newly define and designate "domestic terrorist organizations," and bar their members from assembling in groups of three or more. The bill broadly defines an "act of domestic terrorism," in part echoing the state's definition of a hate crime. The bill would provide for state authorities to designate as a "domestic terrorist organization" an identifiable group that aims to commit an act of domestic terrorism or whose members individually or collectively have attempted to commit an act of domestic terrorism. According to the bill, members of a designated domestic terrorist organization are prohibited from assembling in groups of three or more persons. The bill provides that such an assembly is unlawful, and any individual who participates in such an "unlawful assembly" (whether a member or not) could be charged with a Class I misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $2,500 fine. If an individual carries a firearm or other deadly or dangerous weapon while participating in such an "unlawful assembly" of domestic terrorist group members, they are subject to a Class 5 felony, punishable by up to ten years in prison. A spokesman for the Attorney General's Office, which helped draft the bill, indicated that it was prompted by the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville on August 12. Critics of the bill have noted that the broad language of the bill could allow authorities to target minority communities who have "unpopular beliefs." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 19 Jan 2018.

Issue(s): Terrorism

return to map
Virginia

HB 1791: Expanded definition of "incitement to riot"

Would have expanded the definition of "incitement to riot" and heightened penalties for encouraging others to produce a riot against a law-enforcement officer, firefighter, or emergency medical personnel. Under the bill, encouraging others to engage in a peaceful protest that results in acts of force or violence against such officers or personnel is a felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Jan 2017; Approved by House 26 Jan 2017; Approved by Senate 13 Feb 2017; Vetoed by Governor McAuliffe 28 April 2017

Issue(s): Riot

return to map
Virginia

SB 1055: Heightened penalties for participation in an "unlawful assembly"

Would have broadened the scope of the state's anti-protesting laws. The bill would increase penalties for people who engage in an "unlawful assembly" after "having been lawfully warned to disperse," elevating the act from a Class 3 misdemeanor, which carries only a maximum $500 fine, to a Class 1 misdemeanor, which could be subject to up to one year in prison and a fine of up to $2,500. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 6 Jan 2017; Failed in Senate on 23 Jan 2017

return to map
Washington

SB 5941: New penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

Would prohibit a person from "wearing a mask, hood, or device where any portion of the face is covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer" when they are on public or state-owned property including, e.g., during a protest. Under the bill, commission of this offense is punishable as a gross misdemeanor. State Senator Jim Honeyford said he sponsored this bill in response to vandalism and violence that he believes occurs "under the guise of political speech," that threatens citizens' "safety and welfare." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 22 May 2017; reintroduced 8 January, 2018.

Issue(s): Face Covering

return to map
Washington

SB 5009: Heightened penalties for protests that block traffic and interfere with "economic activities"

Would target protests that disrupt roadways, railroads, and other "legally permitted economic activities." The bill heightens penalties for illegal actions that aim to create economic harm by impeding legally-permitted economic activities. According to the bill, if a court finds that the perpetrator of another offense intended to cause economic disruption, his or her sentence can be extended 60 days for a misdemeanor, six months for a gross misdemeanor, and 12 months for a felony. The bill provides that those who fund or sponsor such actions can be charged as accomplices. The state senator who sponsored the bill indicated in November 2016 that it was drafted to respond to protests aimed at disrupting economic activities, which he deemed tantamount to "economic terrorism." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 9 Jan 2017; reintroduced 8 January, 2018.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

return to map
Wisconsin

AB 617: New penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

Would make it a crime to wear a mask to conceal one's identity when an individual is on a sidewalk, walkway, bike path, highway, or public property. It also makes it a crime to be masked while participating in a "meeting or demonstration" on private property without the permission of the property owner. There are exceptions for wearing a mask for religious beliefs, a holiday costume, protecting oneself from the elements, or because it is part of one's occupation. However, there is no exception for wearing a mask during a demonstration. The offense is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to 9 months in jail or a $10,000 fine. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 19 Nov 2019.

Issue(s): Face Covering

return to map
Wisconsin

AB 444: Mandatory sanctions for campus protesters

Would impose mandatory disciplinary measures on student protesters in certain cases. The bill requires that the University of Wisconsin's Board of Regents adopt a policy that includes a range of disciplinary sanctions for anyone under an institution's jurisdiction who engages in "violent or other disorderly conduct that materially and substantially disrupts the free expression of others." The bill further requires universities in the state system to suspend for at least one semester any student "who has twice been found responsible for interfering with the expressive rights of others." If a student is found responsible for such interference a third time, they must be expelled. As a result, rowdy protests in public areas of campus that, for instance, made it difficult to hear a speech, would be banned and its participants liable to penalties. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 13 Sep 2019; Approved by House on 11 February 2020

Issue(s): Campus Speech

return to map
Wisconsin

AB 395/SB 303: Expanded definition of "riot"

As originally introduced, Assembly Bill 395 would have newly defined a "riot" under Wisconsin law and provided for heavy criminal penalties for participants in a riot. The introduced bill broadly defined "riot" as a "public disturbance" including an act or threat of violence among an assembly of three or more people that "constitutes a clear and present danger" of damage to persons or property. Accordingly, under the introduced bill, individuals in a gathering where a violent or destructive incident took place could be charged with participation in a riot, classified as a Class I felony punishable by three and a half years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The bill was amended in late 2017, revising and narrowing the offense of "participation in a riot" to require individual intent: Under the amended bill, it is a Class I felony to "intentionally" commit or threaten to commit an act of violence that "constitutes a clear and present danger" of damage to persons or property, while engaging in a "public disturbance" with at least three people. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 19 Jun 2017.

Issue(s): Riot

return to map
Wisconsin

AB 396/SB 304: New penalties for blocking traffic during a riot

Would create a new criminal offense of blocking a public or private thoroughfare or access to a private or public building while participating in a riot (as defined and penalized in AB 395). The bill was amended in late 2017 to add elements of individual intent; under the amended version, it is a Class H felony to "intentionally" commit or threaten to commit an act of violence that "constitutes a clear and present danger" of damage to persons or property, while blocking a thoroughfare or access point as part of a "public disturbance" with at least three people. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 19 Jun 2017.

Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference

return to map
Wisconsin

AB 397/SB 305: New penalties for carrying a weapon during a riot

Would impose new penalties for participation in a riot (as defined and penalized in AB 395) while carrying a dangerous weapon. Doing so is classified as a Class G felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $25,000 fine. The bill was amended in late 2017 to add elements of individual intent: Under the revised bill, it is a Class G felony to "knowingly use a dangerous weapon" and "intentionally" commit or threaten to commit an act of violence that "constitutes a clear and present danger" of damage to persons or property, while engaging in a "public disturbance" with at least three people. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 19 Jun 2017.

Issue(s): Riot

return to map
Wisconsin

AB 299: Mandatory sanctions for campus protesters

Would impose mandatory disciplinary measures on student protesters in certain cases. The bill requires that students who engage in "violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, obscene, unreasonably loud, or other disorderly conduct that interferes with the free expression of others" on Wisconsin college or university campuses be compelled to attend a mandatory disciplinary hearing. The bill also requires campus authorities to suspend for a minimum of one semester or expel a student who interferes more than once with another's free speech, for instance by protesting a controversial campus speaker. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 5 May 2017; Approved by Assembly 21 June 2017

Issue(s): Campus Speech

return to map
Wyoming

HB 10: New penalties for protests near critical infrastructure

Would heighten potential penalties for protests near oil pipelines and other infrastructure facilities, including those under construction. The bill creates the offense of "critical infrastructure trespass," defined as entering or remaining on a critical infrastructure facility or the construction site of such a facility, while aware or on notice that presence is not authorized. Under the bill, critical infrastructure trespass is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of $1,000. The bill also creates the offense of "impeding critical infrastructure," defined as intentionally impeding the operations of or access to an infrastructure facility or facility construction site, or tampering with or damaging facility equipment. A person who impedes critical infrastructure, e.g. by blocking the entrance to a pipeline construction site during a protest, may be charged with a felony, punishable by up to ten years in prison and $10,000 if the impediment results in over $1,000 in damage or lost profits. The bill also provides that an organization that "aids, abets, solicits, compensates, hires, conspires with, commands or procures" a person to commit the crime of impeding critical infrastructure is liable to a fine of up to $100,000 and civil damages to the infrastructure facility for lost profits. "Critical infrastructure facility" is broadly defined and among many other things includes oil and gas pipelines, refineries, water treatment plants, airports, and railroad tracks - or the construction sites thereof. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 14 Dec 2018; House consideration denied 4 February 2019

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass

return to map
Wyoming

HB 0137: Mandatory sanctions for campus protesters

Would create mandatory disciplinary sanctions that could be applied to peaceful protesters on college campuses. The bill requires the University of Wyoming and community colleges to adopt a "free speech protection policy" that includes the mandatory suspension for at least one year or expulsion of any student who is twice found responsible for "infringing upon the expressive rights of others." The bill also calls for a "range of disciplinary sanctions" to be imposed on anyone under the university's jurisdiction who "materially and substantially interferes with the free expression of others." (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 12 Feb 2018; Failed in House 16 Feb

Issue(s): Campus Speech

return to map
Wyoming

SF 0074: New penalties for protests near "critical infrastructure"

Would raise potential penalties for protests near oil pipelines and other facilities by providing for the offense of "critical infrastructure trespass." The offense is defined as entering or remaining on a "critical infrastructure facility" while aware or on notice that presence is not authorized. Under the bill, critical infrastructure trespass is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of $1,000. If a person trespasses with the intent to impede the facility's operations, or damage, deface, or tamper with facility equipment, the offense is a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison and a $100,000 fine. The bill also provides that an organization that "aids, abets, solicits, encourages, compensates, conspires, commands or procures" a person to commit felonious infrastructure trespass is liable to a fine of up to $1 million. "Critical infrastructure facility" is broadly defined and among many other things includes oil and gas pipelines, refineries, water treatment plants, railroad tracks, and telephone poles. (See full text of bill here)

Status: defeated / expired

Introduced 7 Feb 2018; Approved by Senate 27 Feb 2018; Approved by House 10 March 2018; Vetoed by Governor Mead 14 March 2018

Issue(s): Conspiracy, Infrastructure, Trespass

return to map

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