The US Protest Law Tracker follows state and federal legislation introduced since January 2017 that restricts the right to peaceful assembly. For more information, visit our Analysis of US Anti-Protest Bills page.
Latest updates: Jun. 17, 2026 (Louisiana), May. 29, 2026 (Georgia, Oklahoma), Apr. 29, 2026 (Tennessee)
12 entries matching in provided filters in 3 states. Clear all filters
Alabama
SB 17 / HB 21: New Penalties for Protests Near Gas and Oil Pipelines
Expands the definition of "critical infrastructure" under Alabama law to include pipelines and mining operations, such that protesters who enter onto pipeline property could face steep penalties. Preexisting Alabama law prohibited individuals from 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 this law, if a person interrupts or interferes with the operations of critical infrastructure while trespassing, they would additionally be guilty of a Class C felony, punishable by at least one and up to ten years in prison. This law also expanded the definition of "person" to include nonprofits, creating the possibility that nonprofits who provide support or organizing for environmental protests near critical infrastructure where individuals then trespass could face organizational liability. The draft law was pre-filed for the 2022 legislative session in September 2021. It is nearly identical to HB 516 introduced in 2021.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: enacted
Introduced 11 Jan 2022; Approved by Senate 1 February 2022; Approved by House 10 February 2022; Signed by Governor Ivey 15 February 2022
Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure, Trespass
return to map
Alabama
SB 152: New controls on protest locations and costs for protest organizers
Allows municipalities in Lauderdale County to control where protesters may gather, and charge them expansive fees for a permit. Under the law, municipalities may prohibit spontaneous protests in public forums by requiring protesters to obtain permits in certain circumstances, including if the demonstration "will involve more than a certain number of individuals participating, as established by the municipality." The law also allows municipalities to charge protester organizers a permit fee that includes "the actual cost of cleanup," "the actual cost of the use of law enforcement officers," and "any other actual administrative cost incurred by the municipality."
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: enacted
Introduced 21 Feb 2021; Approved by Senate 16 March 2021; Approved by House 13 April 2021; Signed by Governor Ivey 27 April 2021
Issue(s): Security Costs
return to map
Illinois
HB 2357: New penalties for protests that block traffic
Would create a new felony offense for protests that block traffic on highways and other busy roadways for more than five minutes. Existing Illinois law already prohibits protests or other assemblies on roadways without a permit or other permission from law enforcement, and requires that such assemblies not obstruct pedestrian or car traffic “in an unreasonable manner;” violations are a Class A misdemeanor offense. Under the bill, blocking “an exceptionally busy public right-of-way” for more than five minutes in a way that prevents “or would prevent” passage of an emergency vehicle, is a Class 4 felony. As written, the felony offense applies regardless of whether an emergency vehicle was actually blocked, or whether the roadway was “exceptionally busy” at the time it was blocked. “Exceptionally busy public right-of-way” is defined as a public road that typically carries at least 24,000 cars daily. The bill would also newly preempt cities and counties from enforcing a more lenient rule related to protests and demonstrations on roadways. The same bill was introduced as HB 5819 during the 2023-2024 session.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 4 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): Traffic Interference
return to map
Illinois
HB 1480: New penalties for protests near critical infrastructure
Would create a new felony offense that could cover nonviolent protesters at pipeline and other infrastructure sites. Under the bill, someone who knowingly “vandalizes, defaces, tampers with” or damages part of a critical infrastructure facility commits a felony. If the “value of the property” (not the cost of the damage) is less than $500, the offense is a Class 4 felony, punishable by 1-3 years in prison and up to $20,000; if the property value is $500-$10,000, it is a Class 3 felony (2-5 years and $20,000); and if the property value exceeds $10,000, it is a Class 2 felony (3-7 years and $20,000). The bill newly defines "critical infrastructure facility" under Illinois law to include gas and oil pipelines and a range of pipeline-related facilities, as well as electric, water, telecommunications, railroad, and “health care” facilities, regardless of whether they are fenced off or clearly marked with signs. As such, a protester who chalked or spraypainted a pipeline without damaging its functionality could face felony charges and a lengthy prison sentence if convicted. The bill extends liability to anyone who “conspires with” a person to commit the offense. It also provides that critical infrastructure owners can sue for punitive and compensatory damages. The same bill was introduced as HB 4746 in the 2023-2024 session.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 21 Jan 2025.
Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure
return to map
Missouri
HB 355: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines
Creates new potential penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines and other "critical infrastructure." The law--which was substituted by a Missouri Senate committee for a House bill on sentencing guidelines--heightens the penalties for trespass occurring on critical infrastructure property. Trespass with intent "to damage, destroy, vandalize, deface, [or] tamper with" a facility or intent to "impede or inhibit the operations" of a facility is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by one year in jail and a $2,000 fine. Protesters seeking to peacefully demonstrate against construction of a new pipeline, for instance, with the intent to disrupt that construction, could be prosecuted under the law. The law also newly criminalizes "damage" to critical infrastructure, broadly defined to include vandalism, and makes it a Class C felony, punishable by 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The law also newly and broadly defines "critical infrastructure" to include oil and gas pipelines, refineries, cell phone towers, and railroad tracks whether operational or under construction. (See full text of bill here)
Status: enacted
Introduced 18 Apr 2019; Approved by Senate as amended 17 May 2019; Approved by House 17 May 2019; Signed by Governor Parson on 11 July 2019
Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass
return to map
Missouri
HB 1413: Limiting public employees' ability to picket
***Note: A Judge of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County found HB 1413 unconstitutional in its entirety and granted a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the law on January 27, 2020. ***
Bars certain public employees from picketing. The law requires that all labor agreements negotiated between a "public body" and a labor organization "shall expressly prohibit all strikes and picketing of any kind." The law further mandates that such agreements provide for the "immediate termination" of "any public employee who...pickets over any personnel matter." "Public body" is broadly defined in the law to include "the state of Missouri, or any officer, agency, department, bureau, division, board or commission of the state, or any other political subdivision or special district of or within the state"; accordingly, the law may apply to many labor agreements. While "picketing" is not defined under the law, Missouri Code elsewhere refers to "picketing or other organized protests" as "constitutionally protected activity," indicating that picketing as used in HB 1413 includes protests and demonstrations unrelated to labor strikes. (See full text of bill here)
Status: enacted
Introduced 3 Jan 2018; Approved by House 12 February 2018; approved by Senate 16 May 2018; Signed by Governor Greitens 1 June 2018
Issue(s):
return to map
Missouri
SB 1800: New restrictions on campus protest
Would require public colleges and universities to adopt significant new limitations on campus protests, and bar state student financial aid for some demonstrators who violated campus policy. The bill requires all public colleges and universities to adopt an expressive activity policy that among other things prohibits: a) engaging in “expressive activities” on campus between 10pm and 8am; b) erecting tents or otherwise “camping” on campus; c) using sound amplification while engaging in “expressive activities” on campus during class hours; d) engaging in “expressive activities” in the last two weeks of a school term by inviting speakers or using sound amplification or drums; and e) wearing a mask or other disguise while engaging in “expressive activities” on campus with certain intent, including intent to "intimidate others." Under the bill, students who engage in “materially and substantially disruptive conduct” on campus and either violate the school’s policies or commit any criminal offense would be ineligible for state student financial aid for two years. The bill creates a broad definition of “materially and substantially disruptive conduct” that includes simply violating the school’s “time, place, and manner” restrictions on expressive activity if someone “reasonably should know” that the violation “would significantly hinder another person’s or group’s expressive activity.” For example, participation in a noisy protest in violation of the school’s policies that makes it difficult for counterprotesters to be heard, could seemingly result in a two-year ban on financial aid under the bill.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 26 Feb 2026.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Face Covering, Limit on Public Benefits
return to map
Missouri
HB 3259: New civil liability for protest organizers and supporters
Would extend civil liability for damage resulting from certain protests to organizers and supporters, broadly defined. Under current Missouri law, any participant in an “unlawful or riotous” assembly is liable for property damage or personal injury caused by the assembly. The bill expands this liability to anyone “directing, advising, encouraging, or soliciting” the assembly, including “organizers and sponsors” of such assemblies. The bill would newly make such parties jointly and severally liable, such that any one defendant could be held liable for all damages. As such, for instance, a bystander who cheers on a protest that is later deemed unlawful and results in any damaged property could be sued by the property owner for “encouraging” the protest. The bill does not require knowledge or intent to further unlawful activity in order for civil liability to apply.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 10 Feb 2026.
Issue(s): Civil Liability, Riot
return to map
Missouri
HB 2174: Eliminating civil and criminal liability for drivers who hit protesters
Would create civil and criminal immunity for a driver who kills or injures a protester in certain circumstances. Under the bill, a driver would not be criminally or civilly liable for killing or injuring someone who was participating in an “unlawful or riotous assemblage,” if the driver was “attempting to flee” the assemblage, “reasonable believe[d]” they were in danger, and exercised “due care.” If enacted, the bill could encourage vehicular violence against protesters and allow drivers to evade civil damages and criminal penalties for hitting demonstrators in a protest that had been deemed “unlawful.”
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 7 Jan 2026.
Issue(s): Driver Immunity
return to map
Missouri
HB 2555: Registration and reporting requirements for protest organizers and donors, criminal penalties for protesters, and legal protections for drivers who hit protesters
Reporting requirements: The bill would require some protest organizers and nonprofits that support protests to register as lobbyists and report to the state, with criminal and civil penalties for failure to do so. Under the bill, individuals who receive “any thing of monetary value” as compensation for “or provided in association with” attending or organizing “protest activity” would have to register as a “general lobbyist.” Any person, nonprofit, or other organization that provides such compensation for “protest activity” would be required to register as a “general lobbyist principal.” Both the recipient and donor would be required to file reports to the state, to be made public, within one week of any protest activity. The reports would have to include detailed data including the amount of funding involved, the funding source and recipient, date and location of each protest activity, and the protest’s purpose. The state would be empowered to levy penalties of up to $1,000 per day for each day that a recipient or donor failed to file the requisite report or did so inaccurately. A recipient’s failure to file such a report more than once would also be a Class E felony under the bill. In addition to the likely chilling effect of potential penalties for failure to publicly report peaceful protest organizing, the administrative burden created by the reporting system would be significant for both protest organizers and donors. New criminal penalties for masked protesters and street protesters: The bill would create a new Class A misdemeanor for wearing any garment that masks or “obfuscates any part of a person’s face” during an unlawful assembly. A second violation would be a Class E felony. As written, a demonstrator wearing a winter scarf or a medical mask could face up to a year in jail for participating in a peaceful protest that was deemed unlawful for, e.g., blocking pedestrians in a public place. The bill would also create a broad new Class A misdemeanor of “false imprisonment” which could cover peaceful protesters. The offense is defined to include individuals who unlawfully “impede[] the movement of another unlawfully” by “participating as part of a group that blocks rights-of-way on sidewalks, roadways, or any other location in which another has a right to be.” As such, the offense could cover individuals protesting without a permit, for instance, who obstruct others’ movement on a street or sidewalk. Legal immunity for drivers who hit protesters: The bill would create civil and criminal immunity for a driver who kills or injures a protester in certain circumstances. Under the bill, a driver would not be criminally or civilly liable for killing or injuring someone who was participating in an “unlawful or riotous assemblage,” if the driver was “attempting to flee” the assemblage, “reasonable believe[d]” they were in danger, and exercised “due care.” If enacted, the bill could encourage vehicular violence against protesters and allow drivers to evade civil damages and criminal penalties for hitting demonstrators in a protest that had been deemed “unlawful."
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 7 Jan 2026.
Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Driver Immunity, Face Covering, Traffic Interference
return to map
Missouri
HB 495 / SB 52: Broadened “riot” offense and heightened penalties
**Note: This law was amended prior to its enactment, and all provisions related to "riot" and "traffic interference" were removed.** As introduced, the law would have made “rioting” a felony and significantly expand the scope of the offense such that it could cover peaceful demonstrators. The introduced version of the law removed a requirement in preexisting Missouri law than an individual use “force or violence” in order to be criminally liable for “riot”: As such, under the law as introduced, an individual engages in “rioting” if they merely assemble with six people and commit any unlawful act. A first offense would be a Class D felony (up to seven years in prison and $10,000) rather than a misdemeanor, and subsequent offenses would be a Class C felony (up to 10 years and $10,000). For instance, participants in a seven-person vigil that commits a “peace disturbance” by blocking a sidewalk—a misdemeanor crime—could face felony charges. If anyone is injured during the “riot” or property damage of more than $5,000 occurs, the offense would be a Class B felony (up to 15 years), while if a police officer or other safety official is injured, rioting would be a Class A felony (up to life in prison). As introduced, the law would also have created a new offense of “unlawful traffic interference,” defined as walking, sitting, standing or otherwise being present on a public street “in such a manner as to block passage by a vehicle,” with the intention of “impeding” traffic. As written, the offense did not require that traffic actually be impeded for the offense to occur, such that peaceful protesters who gather in the street could be covered even if they do not actually impede any vehicles. Traffic interference would have been an infraction for the first offense, but a Class A misdemeanor (punishable by up to one year in jail) for second offense and a Class E felony (four years in prison) for third and subsequent offenses. Lawmakers amended the law before passing it to remove all provisions related to "riot" and "traffic interference."
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: enacted with improvements
Introduced 8 Jan 2025; Approved by House 20 February 2025; Approved by Senate 10 March 2025; Signed by Governor Kehoe 26 March 2025
Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference
return to map
Missouri
SB 26: heightened penalties for blocking roads
**Note: This bill was amended prior to its passage by the legislature to remove entirely the provisions related to "unlawful traffic interference."** Would criminalize protests that block traffic as "unlawful traffic interference" and provide for harsh penalties. Like SB 9, introduced in the 2020 session, the bill would criminalize a person's intentional blocking of traffic on a public street or highway, whether with her body or an object, as 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. Missouri law currently defines an "unlawful assembly" as a gathering of at least six people in order to violate a law with force or violence. The bill would broaden this definition to include a gathering of two or more people to violate any law, with or without force or violence.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: enacted with improvements
Introduced 1 Dec 2020; Approved by Senate 25 February 2021; Approved by House 4 May 2021
Issue(s): Traffic Interference
return to map
