HR 2065: Harsh penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

Would make it a federal crime, subject to a lengthy prison sentence, to wear a mask or other disguise while protesting in an "intimidating" or “oppressive” way. Under the “Unmasking Hamas Act,” anyone "in disguise, including while wearing a mask" who "injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates any person" exercising their constitutional rights could be sentenced to up to 15 years in prison as well as fined. The bill does not define “oppress,” nor does the bill specify what is meant by “disguise,” other than that it includes a “mask.” The bill’s substantive provisions are identical to the “Unmasking Antifa Act,” which lawmakers have introduced in several previous sessions. Sponsors of the bill made clear that it is a response to pro-Palestine protesters, some of whom have worn masks to avoid retaliation.

Status: pending

Introduced 11 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): Face Covering

S 937: Barring student protesters from federal loans and loan forgiveness

Would exclude student protesters from federal financial aid and loan forgiveness if they commit any crime at a campus protest. The bill would cover someone convicted of “any offense” under “any Federal or State law” that is “related to the individual’s conduct at and during the course of a protest” at a college or university. As such, a student convicted of even a nonviolent, state law misdemeanor at a campus protest, such as failing to disperse, would be deemed ineligible for federal student loans; they would also be ineligible for having existing federal loans forgiven, cancelled, waived or modified. The sponsor of the bill said it was a response to pro-Palestine protests at colleges and universities.

Status: pending

Introduced 11 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): Campus Protests, Limit on Public Benefits

HR 1057: Penalties for protesters on interstate highways

Would create steep new penalties for protesters deemed to be “deliberately delaying traffic,” “standing or approaching a motor vehicle,” or “endangering the safe movement of a motor vehicle” on an interstate highway “with the intent to obstruct the free, convenient, and normal use of the interstate highway.” The new federal offense would be punishable by up to $10,000 and 15 years in prison—a far harsher penalty than is the case under many states' laws, which generally already criminalize walking or standing on the highway. The bill provides an exception for “any lawful activity” authorized by federal, state, or local law. However, it could still seemingly cover far more than “blocking” the interstate, including a peaceful protest on the shoulder of an interstate or a convoy-style, driving protest that slowed traffic. The sponsor of the bill made clear that it was in response to protesters. The same bill was introduced as HR 7349 in 2024. 

Status: pending

Introduced 6 Feb 2025.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

HB 412: Felony penalties for protesters near gas and oil pipelines

Would substantially increase existing penalties that could cover protesters who demonstrate on pipeline property. Under the bill, unauthorized entry onto “critical infrastructure,” which includes pipelines, would be a Class D felony punishable by at least one and up to five years in prison, rather than a serious misdemeanor. As such, demonstrators who enter onto pipeline property could face felony arrest and significant prison time. The trespass offense covers entry onto areas of “critical infrastructure” that are not posted against trespassing or enclosed by a physical barrier, if any authorized person forbids entry. 

Status: pending

Introduced 6 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass

HB 71 / SB 74: New penalties for protesting without a permit

Would introduce new criminal and civil penalties that could cover participants in a spontaneous protest or other demonstration without a permit. The bill creates a new felony offense that would cover someone who “knowingly… obstructs or blocks a public place.” While it includes exceptions for “obstruction” authorized by a permit or otherwise authorized by the law, the new offense would clearly cover unpermitted protests—particularly large protests in public plazas, parks, streets, sidewalks or other places that might “obstruct” the movement of nonparticipants. If the protest “substantially interferes” with someone’s access to a government building, or “interferes” with an emergency responder, the offense would be a Class C felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and $50,000. In all other cases it would be a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and $25,000. In addition to criminal penalties, the bill creates expansive civil liability for protesters who block public places. A person “whose passage is obstructed” could sue a protester for $10,000 if their rights were infringed, $50,000 if their property was damaged, and $100,000 if they were personally injured – in addition to attorney’s fees and costs. Under the bill, civil liability extends to anyone who “directly or indirectly, by words or action, aids, encourages, or authorizes the conduct,” including by “advising” another person to engage in the conduct or “conspiring” to engage in the conduct. It also extends to anyone outside the state of Alaska if they “knew or had reason to know” that their acts were likely to lead to the obstruction. A similar bill was introduced in 2024, though with lesser criminal penalties. 

Status: pending

Introduced 27 Jan 2025.

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

HB 2880: Banning protest encampments on campus

Would bar protest encampments on the campuses of state colleges and universities without prior authorization. Under the bill, individuals or groups that establish an unauthorized “encampment” would no longer be lawfully present on campus for the purpose of speech protections under Arizona law; they would be criminally liable to prosecution for trespass and damaging public property; and they would be liable for “direct and indirect costs” of any damage “that resulted from the individual’s intentional or negligent conduct relating” to the encampment. The bill defines “encampment” as “temporary shelter” installed on campus and used to stay overnight or “for a prolonged period of time.” The bill would require colleges and universities to order individuals to dismantle and vacate unauthorized encampments; if the individuals refuse to comply, the institution would be required to take disciplinary action and report the individuals to local law enforcement for trespassing. The bill's sponsor said that it was motivated by pro-Palestine protests on college campuses.

Status: pending

Introduced 12 Feb 2025; Approved by House 3 March 2025

Issue(s): Campus Protests, Trespass, Camping

HB 602: Stripping financial aid from student protesters

Would bar state financial aid from college and university students who violate campus rules or are convicted of a crime related to a “disruptive” protest on campus. Under the bill, a student who is convicted of a crime or is determined to have violated their school’s code of conduct as a result of engaging in “materially and substantially disruptive conduct” on campus, would be immediately denied state funds for loans, grants, and scholarships. The bill defines “materially and substantially disruptive conduct” broadly to include conduct that would “hinder” another person’s expressive activity or prevent a “lawful meeting” or “gathering,” including by creating “loud or sustained noise,” “occupying or materially disrupting” access to campus facilities, or merely violating campus “time, place, and manner” rules for protests. As such, for instance, a student who was disciplined for participating in a noisy protest outside of a speaking event in violation of campus rules could have their state financial aid revoked. The threat of losing financial aid could have a broader chilling effect on campus protests.

Status: pending

Introduced 24 Feb 2025.

Issue(s): Campus Protests

HB 125: Heightened penalties for "riot"

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

Status: pending

Introduced 4 Feb 2025; Approved by House 17 February 2025

Issue(s): Riot

HB 2357: New penalties for protests that block traffic

Would create a new felony offense for protests that block traffic on highways and other busy roadways for more than five minutes. Existing Illinois law already prohibits protests or other assemblies on roadways without a permit or other permission from law enforcement, and requires that such assemblies not obstruct pedestrian or car traffic “in an unreasonable manner;” violations are a Class A misdemeanor offense. Under the bill, blocking “an exceptionally busy public right-of-way” for more than five minutes in a way that prevents “or would prevent” passage of an emergency vehicle, is a Class 4 felony. As written, the felony offense applies regardless of whether an emergency vehicle was actually blocked, or whether the roadway was “exceptionally busy” at the time it was blocked. “Exceptionally busy public right-of-way” is defined as a public road that typically carries at least 24,000 cars daily. The bill would also newly preempt cities and counties from enforcing a more lenient rule related to protests and demonstrations on roadways. The same bill was introduced as HB 5819 during the 2023-2024 session. 

Status: pending

Introduced 4 Feb 2025.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

HB 1480: NEW PENALTIES FOR PROTESTS NEAR CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

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

Status: pending

Introduced 21 Jan 2025.

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

SB 286: New criminal penalties for masked protesters

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

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Jan 2025.

Issue(s): Face Covering, Riot

HF 952: Requiring state permission for protests in the capitol and on capitol grounds

Would require organizers to have a government sponsor in order to hold protests in or near the Iowa capitol. Under the bill, organizers cannot hold “events” in capitol buildings or on capitol grounds unless they have a “recommendation” either from a statewide elected official or by both a member of Iowa’s state senate and its house of representatives. The bill would also prohibit the same person from holding more than six “events” per year in or around the capitol. Neither the bill nor the relevant provisions of Iowa law define “events,” such that they could seemingly include public protests and demonstrations. As such, the bill would effectively give elected officials authority to allow or disallow protests near the capitol.

Status: pending

Introduced 12 Mar 2025.

HF 25: Heightened penalties for masked protesters

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

Status: pending

Introduced 14 Jan 2025.

Issue(s): Face Covering

HB 399: New penalties for protesters at the capitol

Would create serious new criminal offenses that could cover peaceful protesters at the state capitol, as well as anyone who “conspires” with or otherwise supports them. Under the bill, it would be an offense for someone to enter the capitol, or to impede access to the capitol by a legislator or legislative staff, with intent to disrupt or impede legislative business—regardless of whether legislative business was in fact “impeded.” “Conspir[ing]” to engage in such conduct or “facilitat[ing]” another person to engage in the conduct would be treated the same as engaging in it. It would be a Class B misdemeanor (punishable by up to 3 months in jail) for a first offense, and a Class A misdemeanor (up to one year in jail) for subsequent offenses. As written, the offense could cover the organizer of a protest outside the capitol that slowed pedestrian traffic in and out of the building. It would be a more serious offense for someone to engage in “disorderly or disruptive conduct” inside the Capitol with intent to disrupt or impede legislative business, if their conduct in fact “disrupts” or “impedes” the legislature’s business—even momentarily. “Conspir[ing]” to engage in such conduct or “facilitat[ing]” another person to engage in the conduct would be treated the same as engaging in it. The offense would be a Class A misdemeanor (punishable by up to one year in jail) for the first incident, and a Class D felony (up to 5 years in prison) for third and subsequent offenses. As written, the offense could cover a demonstrator who shouts a single chant during a legislative hearing. Prior to passing the bill, lawmakers added an amendment which provides that the law would not be construed "to prohibit... Assembly in traditional public forums, including but not limited to the Capitol rotunda and outdoor areas of the Capitol grounds." While helpful, the amendment does not immunize all peaceful protest activity that the law could potentially punish, including protest organizing.    

Status: pending

Introduced 6 Feb 2025; Approved by House 7 March 2025; Approved by Senate 13 March 2025

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

SF 1501: Heightened penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would heighten penalties for protesters who intentionally “interfere with” or “disrupt” traffic that is entering, exiting, or on a freeway or a roadway on airport property. Under the bill, intentional traffic disruption on freeways or airport roadways would be a gross misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $3,000 fine. The relevant provisions are identical to HF 329 / SF 728. 

Status: pending

Introduced 17 Feb 2025.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

SF 1363: New penalties for pipeline protesters and supporters, and protesters who block traffic

Would create new civil and criminal liability for funders and supporters of protesters who peacefully demonstrate on pipeline or other utility property. Any person or entity that "recruits, trains, aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with" a person who trespasses onto a “critical public service facility, utility, or pipeline” would be civilly liable for any damages committed by the trespasser under the bill. They would also be guilty of a gross misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $3,000, if they fail to make a reasonable effort to prevent the violation. Additionally, the bill would make the person who trespasses onto the critical public service facility, utility, or pipeline strictly liable for civil damages. Similar provisions were introduced as SF 1493 in the 2023-2024 session. The bill would also make it a gross misdemeanor to obstruct traffic on a freeway or on a public road within airport property, with intent of obstructing or otherwise interfering with traffic. As written, the offense could cover protesters who even momentarily delayed cars on a freeway while demonstrating on the side of the freeway or on an overpass. Similar provisions were introduced as SF 1285/HF 1967 in the 2021-2022 session.   

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Feb 2025.

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

HF 329 / SF 728: Heightened penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would heighten penalties for protesters who intentionally “interfere with” or “disrupt” traffic that is entering, exiting, or on a freeway or a roadway on airport property. Under the bill, intentional traffic disruption on freeways or airport roadways would be a gross misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $3,000 fine. A nearly identical bill was proposed as HF 1967 / SF 1285, introduced in 2021.

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Feb 2025.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

HF 367 / SF 180: New civil liability for street protesters

Would allow third parties or the government to sue protesters if they interfere with traffic on certain public roads. Under the bill, someone who intentionally “interferes with” or “obstructs” passage on any “public highway” would be civilly liable for damages and attorneys fees. Any injured person, private entity, or state or local government could bring such a lawsuit, though the bill provides that the government cannot bring both a civil suit and criminal charges for the same conduct. “Highways” in Minnesota include many two-lane roads with stop signs and stoplights. As such, protesters whose demonstration paused or delayed traffic on certain roads could face costly litigation by, for instance, a company that claimed it was “damaged” by the delay.

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Feb 2025.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

SF 708: BARRING PUBLIC BENEFITS FOR PROTEST-RELATED OFFENSES

Would broadly disqualify a person convicted of an offense during a protest from receiving public assistance. Any "offense related to the person's illegal conduct at a protest, demonstration, rally, civil unrest, or march" would disqualify the person from a range of benefits, including food assistance, education loans and grants, and unemployment assistance. Under the bill, a person convicted of even a misdemeanor that is deemed somehow "related" to their participation in a peaceful protest could face permanent disqualification from such benefits. The same bill was introduced as SF 935 in 2023.

Status: pending

Introduced 27 Jan 2025.

Issue(s): Limit on Public Benefits

SF 702: New civil immunity for drivers who hit protesters

Would shield from civil lawsuits drivers who hit street protesters in certain situations. The bill provides that anyone who unlawfully obstructs a roadway cannot sue a driver for any injury, loss, death or damage they suffered if the driver was seeking to “retreat or escape” from the roadway obstruction and believed they were in immediate danger of injury. An identical bill was introduced as SF 5500 in 2024.

Status: pending

Introduced 27 Jan 2025.

Issue(s): Driver Immunity

HB 601: Heightened penalties for masked protesters

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

Status: pending

Introduced 8 Jan 2025.

Issue(s): Face Covering

S 5911: 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 that is “likely to create public alarm”—regardless of whether such protest ever takes place or creates “public alarm.” The bill would make the offense a Class E felony, punishable by up to four years in prison, instead of a Class A misdemeanor.

Status: pending

Introduced 3 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): Riot

S 723: New criminal penalties for masked protesters

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

Status: pending

Introduced 8 Jan 2025.

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

S 534: New penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would create a new criminal offense that could cover unpermitted protests and demonstrations on streets, sidewalks, or near public buildings. According to the bill, a person participating in a protest without a permit who “obstructs” cars or pedestrians, or prevents people from entering or exiting buildings, commits a new offense of “aggravated disorderly conduct” if they intend “to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm” or are “recklessly creating a risk thereof.” The offense would be a class A misdemeanor, punishable by one year in jail and $1,000. As written, an individual in a spontaneous protest that blocks a sidewalk, “recklessly creating a risk” of inconveniencing people, would be guilty of the offense. The bill would also add the offense to the underlying offenses that can be charged as a hate crime under New York law, and allow individuals arrested for the offense to be held for bail. The same bill was introduced as S 8646 in 2024.

Status: pending

Introduced 8 Jan 2025.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

HB 1226: New criminal penalties for masked protesters

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

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Jan 2025; Approved by House 10 February 2025

Issue(s): Face Covering

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

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

Status: pending

Introduced 28 Jan 2025.

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

SB 481: Restrictions on public employees' ability to protest

Would broadly prohibit public employees from participating in protests during work hours in most situations. Under a committee substitute to the bill introduced on February 25, it would be unlawful for state or local government employees including public school teachers to “speak on or participate in a matter of public concern deemed a matter of larger societal significance” in “an organized form of protest” during their normal working hours. The bill would allow public employees to protest during working hours only if they were using annual leave and if their actions did not create “an undue burden on the employer’s interest in an efficient, disruptive-free workplace”—a vaguely worded condition that employers could abuse to restrict employees' participation in disfavored protests. The bill would also prohibit public employees from using publicly owned computers, transportation, or other equipment for conduct related to participation in protests.

Status: pending

Introduced 25 Feb 2025.

HB 2534: Felony penalties for protesters who impede traffic

Would expand the definition of “riot” such that the felony offense could cover demonstrators who peacefully protest in the street. Oregon law defines “riot” as engaging in “tumultuous and violent conduct” with a group of five or more other people in a way that “intentionally or recklessly creates a grave risk of causing public alarm.” The offense is a Class C felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and $125,000. The bill would define “tumultuous and violent conduct” to include “imped[ing] traffic,” creating a “traffic hazard,” or “block[ing] the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.” As such, a large sidewalk protest that even momentarily overflowed onto a street in a way that could be considered a “traffic hazard” could be deemed a “riot,” and demonstrators could face felony penalties regardless of whether their conduct was “tumultuous” or “violent.”

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Jan 2025.

Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference

SB 672 / HB 729: Felony penalties for blocking traffic or pedestrians

Would significantly increase the penalty for “obstructing” streets, sidewalks, and other public passageways, such that demonstrators in a variety of public locations could face felony charges. Current Tennessee law prohibits intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly blocking or making passage “unreasonably inconvenient” on public streets, sidewalks, elevators, aisles, or “any other place” used for passage of people or vehicles. Under the bill, that offense would be a Class E felony, punishable by up to six years in prison, rather than a misdemeanor. As such, demonstrators in a protest that made it “unreasonably inconvenient” for someone to use a sidewalk or access a public building could be arrested and charged with a felony. If protesters blocked or impeded passage on a highway, it would be a Class D felony, punishable by up to 12 years in prison.

Status: pending

Introduced 31 Jan 2025.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

SB 2876: Heightened penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

Would increase criminal penalties that could cover peaceful protesters who choose to wear a mask. Under the bill, a protesters charged with “riot” would face more serious penalties if they were wearing a mask or other face covering with intent to conceal their identity, as compared to someone without a mask. The offense would be a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and $4,000, instead of a Class B misdemeanor. The crime of “riot” under Texas law is defined broadly and does not require violence or other unlawful conduct: The offense covers a group of seven demonstrators whose conduct “substantially obstructs law enforcement or other governmental function or services,” or whose “physical action deprives any person of a legal right or disturbs any person in the enjoyment of a legal right.” Under the bill, a protester who chose to wear a mask to avoid retaliation for their political views could face significant jail time if their nonviolent protest was deemed a “riot.”

Status: pending

Introduced 14 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): Face Covering, Riot

HB 3061: Heightened penalties for masked protesters

Would increase the penalty for protest-related offenses if committed by someone wearing a mask or other disguise to conceal their identity while “congregating with other individuals who were disguised or masked.” Under the bill, the penalty for trespass, “disorderly conduct,” and “riot” would be one degree more severe if committed by a group in which some individuals wore masks. The bill provides an exemption to the penalty enhancement for masks worn during Halloween, a masquerade ball, or “similar celebration,” but not for avoiding retaliation for political speech. “Disorderly conduct” and “riot” are broadly defined under Texas law. Protesters who make “unreasonable noise” in public, for instance, may be charged with “disorderly conduct”; under the bill, such protesters could face significant jail time rather than a fine if they were masked. “Trespass” in Texas also carries significant penalties if committed on college campuses, "critical infrastructure," or other select locations, such that peaceful protesters who trespassed on a college campus could face felony rather than misdemeanor penalties if they were masked to avoid retaliation.

Status: pending

Introduced 19 Feb 2025.

Issue(s): Campus Protests, Face Covering, Infrastructure, Riot, Trespass

HB 1323: New penalties for participants and organizers of highway protests

Would create steep new penalties for people who organize or participate in protests that block certain public roads. The bill would create a new offense of “obstructing highways,” a gross misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail, for anyone in a group of four or more people who “intentionally obstructs” a "state highway" by walking, standing, or sitting in a way that unlawfully “blocks” cars’ ability to pass. ("State highways" in Washington include two-lane roads with stop signs and stoplights.) The bill would also create a felony offense, punishable by up to five years in prison and at least $5,000, for any person to be a “leader or organizer” of a group that engage in “obstructing highways.” Notably, the felony offense does not require that a “leader or organizer” themselves obstruct traffic, or intend or know that the group will obstruct traffic; nor is “leader or organizer” defined. As such, the felony offense would seemingly cover someone who participates in planning or facilitating in any way a protest where some individuals end up demonstrating on a state highway and even momentarily blocking traffic. For either offense, the bill additionally imposes a mandatory minimum sentence of 60 days in jail and a $6,125 fine for any individual who has previously been convicted of other offenses including “disorderly conduct,” “failure to disperse,” “or similar criminal behavior.”  

Status: pending

Introduced 16 Jan 2025.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

HB 3135: New penalties for protesters who block streets and sidewalks

Would create new penalties for protesters who block streets, sidewalks, and other public passageways. Under the bill, someone who obstructs a highway, street, sidewalk or “other place used for the passage of persons, vehicles, or conveyances,” whether alone or with others, commits a misdemeanor, punishable by at least $500 and one month in jail. A second or subsequent offense would be a felony, punishable by at least $1,000 and at least three months and up to three years in prison. The bill defines “obstruct” to include conduct that makes passage “unreasonably inconvenient.” As such, protesters on a sidewalk who were deemed to have made it “unreasonably inconvenient” for pedestrians to pass could face jail terms. A substantially similar bill was introduced as HB 5446 in 2024.

Status: pending

Introduced 4 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

HB 2757: Potential "terrorism" charges for nonviolent protesters

Would create several new, sweeping “terrorism” offenses that could cover nonviolent protesters. One new offense, “terrorist violent mass action,” is defined to include “violent protests” and “riots” that “appear intended” to coerce or intimidate groups, governments, or societies. The bill provides that participation in a “terrorist violent mass action” constitutes an “terrorist act,” and any entity that uses such actions “to advance its agenda” is a “terrorist group.” “Violent protest” is not defined in the bill or elsewhere in the law, nor does the bill require that a person individually commit any act of violence or property damage to be culpable of “terrorist violent mass action.” As such, someone who peacefully participates in a nonviolent but rowdy protest where a few individuals commit property damage could conceivably face “terrorism” charges. Likewise, a nonprofit group involved in organizing or supporting such a protest “to advance its agenda” could be deemed a “terrorist organization” under the bill. Individuals and organizations not directly involved in such a protest could also face felony “terrorism” charges for providing protesters with “material support”—broadly defined by the bill as “any property, tangible or intangible, or service.” The bill also creates a new felony “terrorism” offense for “actions… taken for political reasons to bar other persons from exercising their freedom of movement, via foot or any other conveyance.” As written, that could cover a large, peaceful march that even temporarily stops traffic. Meanwhile, the bill provides complete immunity for people who “injure perpetrators or supporters of perpetrators” while attempting to “escape” such “terrorism.” This provision would seem to eliminate consequences for acts of violence against protesters by people whose movement has been blocked by a protest, including drivers who hit protesters with their cars. The bill also creates new felony “threatening terrorism” offenses for a person or group that "for political reasons blockades property containing critical infrastructure,” or that “trespasses for political reasons onto property containing critical infrastructure.” As such, nonviolent protesters who block a road to a pipeline or enter onto pipeline property could face “threatening terrorism” charges, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. A nearly identical bill was proposed in 2024 (HB 4994) and 2023 (HB 2916).

Status: pending

Introduced 21 Feb 2025.

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Driver Immunity, Infrastructure, Riot, Terrorism, Traffic Interference, Trespass

AB 88: BROAD NEW DEFINITION OF "RIOT" and related felony offenses and civil liability

Would broadly define "riot" under Wisconsin law and create vague new felony offenses as well as expansive civil liability that could cover peaceful protest activity. The bill defines a “riot” as a “public disturbance” involving an act of violence or the threat of violence by someone in a gathering of 3 or more people. No actual damage or injury need take place for a gathering to become a “riot,” only a “clear and present danger” of damage or injury. As such, a large street protest where a single participant threatens to push somebody could be deemed a "riot," with no actual violence or property damage being committed by anyone. The bill creates a Class I felony offense—punishable by up to 3.5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine—for anyone who intentionally incites another “to commit a ‘riot.’” The bill defines “incite” as “to urge, promote, organize, encourage, or instigate other persons.” As drafted, the incitement offense is not limited to urging actual violence against people or property, but could seemingly cover any expression of support for demonstrators in a crowd that had been deemed a “riot.” The bill also creates a Class H felony—punishable by up to 6 years in prison and $10,000—for someone who intentionally "commits an act of violence” (not defined) while part of a “riot.” Finally, the bill makes civilly liable protesters who allegedly commit a “riot” or “vandalism” offense, as well as any person or organization that provides “material support or resources” intending that they be used to engage in such conduct. Civil liability would apply regardless of whether anyone was criminally charged or convicted of “riot” or “vandalism.” The bill’s definition of “material support” is similar to the broad federal law definition of material support for terrorism, and includes funding as well as “communications” and “training.” As such, the civil liability provisions could make individuals and groups even indirectly involved in organizing or otherwise supporting protests vulnerable to lawsuits and extensive monetary damages.

Status: pending

Introduced 28 Feb 2025.

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