S 3942 / HR 7799: New criminal and civil liability for fiscal sponsors of projects involving protest activity

Would expose fiscal sponsors to expanded criminal and civil liability for conduct by groups or projects they support, including protest-related activity. The bill, entitled the “Stop Proxy Organizations Nurturing Subversive Operations and Riots (SPONSOR) Act,” would make 501(c)(3) organizations that provide fiscal sponsorship criminally liable for offenses “related to or arising from” the sponsorship. It would also create civil liability for any “covered activity” that is “related to or arising from” the sponsorship. The bill defines “covered activity” to include “physically blocking” any article in commerce “to intentionally prevent the lawful movement” of commerce. Because street protests may delay traffic or commercial activity, this provision could sweep in nonviolent protest activity. Under current law, in some fiscal sponsorship arrangements, the sponsors may already bear liability for unlawful conduct by the sponsored project. The bill would expand such liability to all models of fiscal sponsorship, including arrangements where the sponsor merely provides grants or administrative support to a separate entity. It would also create new grounds for civil liability linked to protest-related activity. As a result, if a fiscally sponsored project organized a peaceful protest that temporarily blocked traffic, the sponsor could face civil lawsuits or potential criminal exposure. Sponsors of the bill described it as legislation to “hold sponsors of violent protests accountable.”

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 26 Feb 2026.

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

HR 5721: Federal penalties for protests near judges and court officers

Would create a new federal offense that could cover protesters who demonstrate near federal judges, jurors, or court staff, regardless of their intent. Under current law, it is illegal to demonstrate or use a sound-amplification device “in or near a building or residence used by” a federal judge, juror, witness or court officer—only if one does so with the intention of influencing them or otherwise “interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice.” The bill would remove this intent requirement such that the offense could cover protesters who demonstrate in or near any building or residence that they know is occupied by a judge, juror, witness or court officer, regardless of their purpose for doing so. So, for instance, someone could face federal penalties if they knowingly protest outside a restaurant where a judge is eating, even if they are demonstrating about an issue unrelated to a court case.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 8 Oct 2025.

HR 4846: Creating an affirmative defense for drivers who hit protesters

According to the bill's title, it would create an affirmative defense in criminal and civil cases related to "motor vehicle incidents" involving someone who is convicted of "riot." In social media posts, the bill's sponsor said it would "allow Americans to run over" people protesting in the street.  

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 1 Aug 2025.

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Riot

S 2376 / HR 4620: Racketeering penalties for those connected to "riot" offenses

Would add rioting-related offenses to the list of predicate offenses under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Under the bill, entitled the "Stop Financial Underwriting of Nefarious Demonstrations and Extremist Riots" (Stop FUNDERS) Act, an organization or individual found to have "conspired" with individuals to engage in or encourage a protest that is deemed a "riot" could be prosecuted under RICO. Sponsors of the bill cited entities that fund or coordinate protests as potential targets for the legislation. A violation of RICO can lead to up to 20 years in prison and seizure of assets. Third parties can also bring civil suits if injured by a RICO violation and potentially receive treble damages. 

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 22 Jul 2025.

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

HR 4232: Stripping nonprofit status and federal funding of organizations connected to obstruction or "riot" offenses

Would revoke the tax-exempt status and prohibit federal funding of an organization if an officer of the organization or a member of its board of directors is convicted of an offense under Sections 111 or 2101 of U.S. Code Title 18. Section 111 makes it a crime to assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with certain federal officers and employees. The federal government has used Section 111 to charge protesters who have, for example, blocked the path of federal law enforcement. Section 2101 includes a number of rioting offenses, including inciting, participating in, or encouraging a "riot" or aiding or abetting any person inciting or participating in a "riot;" the underlying federal definition of "riot" is broad, moreover, and requires only a “public disturbance” where one individual in a group commits violence. Under the proposed law, if an officer or board member is convicted of violating Section 111 or 2101, even if they were acting independently of their work with a nonprofit, the organization could lose its tax-exempt status and federal funding.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 27 Jun 2025.

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Police Response, Riot, Limit on Public Benefits

HR 4053: Barring small business aid to individuals convicted of "riot" offenses

Would bar individuals convicted of “riot” offenses from receiving small business assistance from the federal government. The bill provides that a person convicted of a felony for actions during or “in connection with” a riot is prohibited from participating in any program run by the Small Business Administration, if the riot resulted in the destruction of a small business. The definition of “riot” under federal law is broad, requiring only a “public disturbance” where one individual in a group commits violence. An individual can be convicted of participating or inciting a “riot” based on conduct that was neither violent nor destructive. Under the bill, individuals convicted of such offenses would become ineligible for support such as disaster relief loans and other small business assistance. The same bill was introduced as HR 6653 in 2022. 

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 17 Jun 2025.

Issue(s): Riot, Limit on Public Benefits

HR 4015 / S 2115: Federal penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would create federal penalties for protesters who block public roads and highways. Under the bill, it would be a federal crime to “in any way or degree, purposely obstruct, delay, or affect commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce by blocking a public road or highway.” The offense would also cover individuals who merely “attempt” or “conspire” to block a public road or highway. The offense would be punishable by an unspecified fine and up to 5 years in federal prison. The same bill was introduced as S 3492 / HR 6926 in the 2023 session.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Jun 2025.

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

S 2001: Providing for deportation of non-citizens who commit protest-related offenses

Would cancel the visa of any individual convicted of protest-related crimes and provide for the individual’s deportation within 60 days. Under the bill, individuals convicted of any “crime (i) related to [their] conduct at and during the course of a protest; (ii) involving the defacement, vandalism, or destruction of Federal property; or (iii) involving the intentional obstruction of any highway, road, bridge, or tunnel” would be deportable. The bill requires that such individuals’ visas be “immediately” cancelled and the individuals removed from the US within 60 days. If enacted, a non-citizen convicted of even a nonviolent misdemeanor “related to” a protest, such as trespass or disorderly conduct, could face deportation. The bill’s sponsor cited protests around immigration raids in Los Angeles as the impetus for his bill.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 10 Jun 2025.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

S 2000: Heightened penalties for "riot" offenses

Would amend the federal anti-rioting law to raise the maximum penalty to ten years in prison, instead of five, for participating in or inciting a “riot,” or aiding or abetting someone to do so. The federal definition of “riot” is broad, requiring only a “public disturbance” where one individual in a group commits violence. Under the bill, someone who committed or abetted an “act of violence” during the commission of a “riot” offense would face a minimum one-year sentence, while an individual who assaulted a law enforcement officer would face a sentence of at least one year and up to life in prison. Federal law defines “act of violence” broadly to include using force against property—or just attempting or threatening to use such force. As such, if enacted, the bill could result in steep criminal penalties for protesters who do not actually engage in violence or destructive conduct. The bill’s sponsor cited protests around immigration raids in Los Angeles as the impetus for his bill.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 10 Jun 2025.

Issue(s): Riot

HR 3859: Providing for deportation of non-citizens who commit protest-related offenses

Would make deportable noncitizens who commit or “admit to” certain offenses that can occur during protests. Under the bill, a noncitizen could be deported if she is convicted of or “admits to having committed” participation in a “riot” under federal, state, or local law, or an act that “involves” using force against a law enforcement officer, or an act that “involves” vandalism of public property. The bill would apply to undocumented immigrants as well as lawful residents. Such individuals would be ineligible for asylum or other discretionary relief; they would be subject to detention throughout removal proceedings and, if deported, would be permanently barred from reentering the U.S. The bill would seemingly grant discretion to executive branch authorities, rather than a court, to determine that someone “admitted” to an offense or other act specified under the bill. Further, “riot” is broadly defined under federal and many state laws, such that it can cover individuals who are not engaged in violence. For instance, if enacted, authorities could seek to deport a noncitizen who posted on social media that she attended a protest that local police deemed a “riot” based on others' conduct. The bill’s sponsor cited protests in Los Angeles against federal immigration raids and arrests as motivation for the bill.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 10 Jun 2025.

Issue(s): Riot

HR 2272: Blocking financial aid to students who commit a "riot"-related offense

Would bar federal financial assistance and loan forgiveness for any student convicted of a crime in connection with a “riot.” The bar would apply to students convicted of “rioting” or “a) inciting a riot; b) organizing, promoting, encouraging, participating in, or carrying on a riot; c) committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or d) aiding or abetting any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot.” Many states define “riot” broadly enough to cover peaceful protest activity; many also have broad laws criminalizing “incitement to riot” that cover protected expression. The bill would bar financial aid and loan forgiveness for students convicted under such provisions. As written, the bill would also bar financial aid and loan forgiveness to students convicted of any offense related to “organizing, promoting, encouraging” a riot, or “aiding and abetting” incitement or participation in a riot, which could cover an even wider range of expressive conduct, from sharing a social media post to cheering on demonstrators in a protest that was deemed a “riot.”

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 21 Mar 2025.

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

HR 2273: Providing for visa revocation and deportation of noncitizens who commit a "riot"-related offense

Would require the Secretary of State to revoke the visa of and make deportable a noncitizen student, scholar, teacher, or specialist convicted of a crime in connection with a “riot.” Under the bill, individuals in the US on an F-1, J-1, or M-1 visa would have their visas revoked and would be deportable if they were convicted of “rioting” or “a) inciting a riot; b) organizing, promoting, encouraging, participating in, or carrying on a riot; c) committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or d) aiding or abetting any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot.” Many states define “riot” broadly enough to cover peaceful protest activity; many also have broad laws criminalizing “incitement to riot” that cover protected expression. The bill would provide for the deportation of foreign students, scholars, and others convicted under such provisions. As written, the bill would also provide for their deportation if convicted of any offense related to “organizing, promoting, encouraging” a riot, or “aiding and abetting” incitement or participation in a riot, which could cover an even wider range of expressive conduct, from sharing a social media post to cheering on demonstrators in a protest that was deemed a “riot.” 

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 21 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): Campus Protests, Riot

S 1017: New federal criminal penalties for protests near pipelines

Would create a new federal felony offense that could apply to protests of planned or operational pipelines. The bill would broadly criminalize under federal law “knowingly and willfully” “vandalizing, tampering with, disrupting the operation or construction of, or preventing the operation or construction of” a gas pipeline. A range of peaceful activities could be deemed “disrupting… the construction of” a pipeline, from a rally that obstructs a road used by construction equipment, to a lawsuit challenging a pipeline’s permit or zoning approval. The bill does not define “disrupt,” such that even a brief delay would seemingly be covered. Further, the underlying law provides that any "attempt" or "conspiracy" to commit the offense would be punished the same as actual commission. As such, individuals as well as organizations that engage in the planning or facilitation of a protest that is deemed to “disrupt” pipeline construction could be covered. The offense would be punishable by up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 for an individual, or $500,000 for an organization.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure

S 982: Potential penalties for universities based on protest policies

Would make federal accreditation of colleges and universities—and thus their access to federal funds—contingent on the institution’s policies on responding to protests. Under the “No Tax Dollars for College Encampments Act of 2024,” universities would have to regularly disclose how they respond to campus “incidents of civil disturbance,” defined to include “a demonstration, riot, or strike,” and their accreditation would be linked to such policies and practices. The bill sponsor cited pro-Palestine campus protests as motivation for the bill; he introduced the same bill in 2024. 

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 12 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): Campus Protests, Riot

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.

(See full text of bill here)

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.

(See full text of bill here)

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. 

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 6 Feb 2025.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

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

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

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

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

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 27 Jan 2025.

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

HB 2880: Banning protest encampments on campus

Bars protest encampments on the campuses of state colleges and universities. Under the new law, individuals or groups that establish an “encampment” are no longer lawfully present on campus for the purpose of speech protections under Arizona law; they are criminally liable to prosecution for trespass; and they are liable for any damage they cause, including the "direct and indirect costs" of removing the encampment and "restoring" campus. The new law defines “encampment” as “temporary shelter” installed on campus and used to stay overnight or “for a prolonged period of time.” The law requires colleges and universities to order individuals to dismantle and vacate any encampment; if the individuals refuse to comply, the institution is required to take disciplinary action and report the individuals to local law enforcement for trespassing. The sponsor of the new law said that it was motivated by pro-Palestine protests on college campuses.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 12 Feb 2025; Approved by House 3 March 2025; Approved by Senate 30 April 2025; Signed by Governor Hobbs 7 May 2025

Issue(s): Campus Protests, Trespass, Camping

HB 2862: New penalties for masked protesters

Would create a new offense that could cover peaceful demonstrators who wear masks. The bill would criminalize wearing a mask “while present at a public assembly” if the wearer intended to conceal their identity. The offense would be a Class 3 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 30 days in jail and $500, but second and subsequent violations would be a Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and $2,500. The bill exempts certain face coverings, including holiday costumes worn to celebrate the holiday, religious coverings, and “medical devices” if prescribed by a doctor. The bill does not exempt masks worn for expressive purposes, medical masks without a prescription, or masks worn to protect the wearer’s privacy. If enacted, a demonstrator wearing a mask to avoid retaliation for their participation in a peaceful protest could face jail time.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 20 Jan 2026; Approved by House 2 March 2026

Issue(s): Face Covering

SB 1093: Expanded definition of "riot" and "conspiracy to riot"

Would expand the definition of “riot” and “conspiracy to riot.” Current Arizona law defines “riot,” a Class 5 felony, as recklessly using or threatening to use force or violence, together with at least two other people, in a way that disturbs the public peace. The bill would expand the definition to include the use or threat of force or violence that results in any amount of property damage. Under this definition, demonstrators in a protest that results in incidental damage such as trampled landscaping or scuffed paint could be at greater risk of liability for felony “riot.” The bill would also revise Arizona law on “conspiracy" when involving the crime of "riot." Under current law, an individual may only be liable for felony conspiracy if they intend to aid commission of a crime, they agree with another person that someone will commit a crime, and someone in the conspiracy commits an overt act that furthers the crime. Under the bill, individuals could be liable for “conspiracy to riot” even in the absence of an overt act; mere intent and an agreement to engage in conduct that would constitute “riot” would be sufficient.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 6 Jan 2026; Approved by Senate 23 February 2026

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Riot

HB 2136: Heightened penalties and new protest-related offenses

Increased penalties for “disorderly conduct” and traffic obstruction: The bill would increase the penalty for “disorderly conduct” from a misdemeanor to a felony if committed by three or more people. Arizona law defines “disorderly conduct” broadly; the offense includes making “unreasonable noise” intended to “disturb the peace,” or making a “protracted commotion” or “display” intended to prevent a lawful meeting. Under the bill, such conduct would be a Class 6 felony, punishable by a year in prison and fines, if it involved three or more people. The bill would similarly increase the penalty for obstructing a public road or other thoroughfare, converting the offense to a Class 6 felony if it involved three or more people. Broad new felony offenses: The bill would additionally create two new, broadly defined Class 5 felony offenses with implications for protesters. The first, “civil terrorism,” is defined as “any unlawful act”--specifically identifying several crimes including "disorderly conduct" and "vandalism"--committed with “intent to coerce or intimidate a civilian population.” The offense does not require violence or the threat of imminent violence. As drafted, it would cover low-level offenses that may occur in the course of peaceful protest activity, like trespass or obstructing a sidewalk, and convert them into felony crimes based on the message being conveyed by protesters if deemed intended to “intimidate” others. The second proposed felony, “subversion,” is defined to include commission of “any unlawful act” with intent to “advance the interests of a terrorist organization,” defined as any organization designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the federal government. The offense similarly requires no violence, or threat or advocacy of violence, and would introduce felony penalties for, e.g., peaceful demonstrators in an unpermitted protest independently advocating for conditions that aligned with the interests of an FTO. Racketeering liability: The bill would make “felony disorderly conduct,” “riot,” "civil terrorism" and "subversion" predicate offenses that could be prosecuted under Arizona’s racketeering law. As a result, protest participants, organizers, and supporters could face prosecutions or civil lawsuits under Arizona’s racketeering law, for instance based on allegations that they were part of an “enterprise” that was engaged in “disorderly conduct.” 

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 6 Jan 2026; Approved by House 9 March 2026

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

HB 2007: Harsh penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

**Note: HB 2007 was signed into law following amendments that removed the most restrictive  provisions.** As originally introduced in the House, the bill made it a felony to wear any kind of disguise at a protest. The introduced bill broadly prohibited disguises, "whether partial or complete," that an individual wore at a protest, political event, or any other public event in order "to evade or escape discovery, recognition or identification." Under the introduced bill, police would have had authority to detain any individual wearing a disguise in order to verify his or her identity and determine if the person had committed a crime; violation of the disguise ban would have been a Class 6 felony, subject to one year in prison. The sponsor of the bill said it was inspired by clashes between police and protesters, some of whom were masked, outside a 2017 rally for President Trump. Following widespread criticism, the bill was comprehensively revised to a single provision that would allow courts to consider it an aggravating factor, for sentencing purposes, if an individual wore a mask or other disguise to hide their face while committing a criminal offense.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted with improvements

Introduced 21 Nov 2017; Governor Ducey signed it 23 March 2018 but the most problematic provisions were defeated.

Issue(s): Face Covering

HB 1508: New penalties for protesters who block traffic, "riot", or damage monuments

As enacted, the law increases the penalty for obstructing a "public passage", from a Class C to a Class A misdemeanor. As such, an individual in a protest that makes a sidewalk "impassable to pedestrian... traffic" could face up to one year in jail. The law also creates a new mandatory minimum sentence of 30 days in jail for "rioting", and requires restitution for any injury or damage as a result of the offense. Rioting is defined in Arkansas to include engaging with two or more persons in "tumultuous" conduct that creates a "substantial risk" of "public alarm." The law requires that a person convicted of inciting a riot likewise pay restitution for any injury or damage as a result of the offense. The law provides that the state Attorney General may initiate an investigation into cases of riot, inciting riot, and obstructing a highway or other public passage. Finally, the law amends the definition of "act of terrorism" under Arkansas law, to include any act that causes "substantial damage" to a public "monument." It is not clear whether graffiti or other painting applied to a monument as part of a protest could comprise a terrorist act under the new law.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 22 Feb 2021; Approved by House 19 April 2021; Approved by Senate 22 April 2021; Signed by Governor Hutchinson 29 April 2021

Issue(s): Riot, Terrorism, Traffic Interference

HB 1321: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines

Introduces harsh new penalties for protestors around gas and oil pipelines and other "critical infrastructure." The law broadly defines "critical infrastructure" to include a range of posted or fenced-off areas associated with natural gas and crude oil production, storage, and distribution, including above and below ground pipelines as well as pipeline construction sites and equipment. Under the law, purposely entering or remaining on any "critical infrastructure" is a Class D felony, punishable by up to 6 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Separately, the law provides that trespassing on property outside of a city or town, regardless of whether it is posted, is a Class D felony if the property is "critical infrastructure." In nearly all other cases, trespass is a misdemeanor or minor violation. The law also creates a felony offense for anyone who purposely and unlawfully "causes damage" to critical infrastructure. Any amount of "damage," which the law does not define is a Class B felony under the law, punishable by 20 years in prison and a $15,000 fine. Under the law, protesters who hold a peaceful sit-in at a pipeline construction site and paint protest slogans on construction material, for instance, could face lengthy prison sentences. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 27 Jan 2021; Approved by House 9 March 2021; Approved by Senate 1 April 2021; Signed by Governor Hutchinson 14 April 2021

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass

HB 1578: Expanded Civil Liability for Those Who Incite a Riot and Criminal Penalties for Obstructing First Responders

Creates a civil cause of action for a person who is injured or has property damaged as a "direct or indirect" result of a "riot" against a person who commits "riot" or a person or entity who incites a riot. Arkansas law defines both "riot" and "incitement" broadly, creating potential liability for protesters or organizations who are interpreted to have urged others to have engaged in tumultuous or violent conduct. 

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 17 Feb 2017; Passed by House 2 March 2017; Passed by Senate 27 March 2017; Signed by Governor 6 April 2017.

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

HB 275 / SB 340: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines

Creates a new felony offense for trespassing that could cover some protests near pipelines and other infrastructure that do not involve actual property damage. The law broadly defines “critical infrastructure” to include above or belowground pipelines, as well as a range of other gas, electricity, water, mining, and telecommunications facilities. Under the law, entering onto critical infrastructure property with notice that such entrace was prohibited is a 3rd degree felony offense. As such, protesters who cause no damage but merely enter onto posted property that contains a pipeline in the course of their protest could face felony charges and up to 5 years in prison if convicted. By contrast, trespassing onto private property is generally a 2nd degree misdemeanor, punishable by at most 60 days in jail. The House bill as originally also created an overbroad “improper tampering” felony offense, which would have included any unauthorized action to “change…the physical condition of the property or any portion thereof,” or to “knowingly and intentionally… deface” critical infrastructure property, but these provisions were removed by amendment.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 25 Oct 2023; Approved by House 22 February 2024; Approved by Senate 28 February 2024; Signed by Governor DeSantis 17 May 2024

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass

HB 1435/SB 1954: Charging protest organizers for the costs of responding to a protest

Would allow local authorities to require protest organizers to pay for "all relevant costs and fees associated with designating and enforcing" the zone established for a "special event," "including, but not limited to, costs and fees for the provision of supplemental law enforcement and sanitation services." While the bill's sponsors indicate that it was motivated by large, disruptive "pop-up" gatherings of cars like the "Daytona Truck Meet," it is written broadly enough to cover street protests and demonstrations. The bill defines a "special event" as an "unpermitted temporary activity or event organized or promoted via a social media platform" which is attended by 50 or more persons and substantially increases or disrupts the normal flow of traffic on a roadway, street, or highway." The bill also authorizes law enforcement to "enforce occupancy limits" in "special event zones"; which if applied to protests could allow police could limit the number of protest participants in a certain area. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 10 Jan 2022; Approved by House 2 March 2022; Approved by Senate 4 March 2022; Approved by Governor DeSantis 26 May 2022

Issue(s): Security Costs

HB 1/SB 484: Expanded definition of "riot" and new penalties for protesters

**Note: On June 20, 2024, the Florida Supreme Court clarified the law's definition of "riot," holding that criminal liability for participation in a "riot" can only apply to an individual who "engage[s] in, or at least intend[s] to assist others in engaging in, violent disorderly conduct." Based on that holding, the Eleventh Circuit ruled on October 7, 2024 that HB1 could go into effect.**

Enlarges the legal definition of "riot," a 3rd degree felony, to include any group of three or more individuals whose shared intent to engage in disorderly and violent conduct results in "imminent danger" of property damage or personal injury, or actual damage or injury. Notably, the new definition does not require that the individuals' conduct be disorderly or violent, or that they commit any actual damage or injury. Under the new law, a "riot" consisting of 25 or more people, or one that "endangers the safe movement of a vehicle," is automatically an "aggravated riot," a new 2nd degree felony offense under the law. As such, large groups of protesters or ones that block traffic, even temporarily, could face up to 15 years in prison. Under the new law, "inciting" someone to participate in a riot is a 3rd degree felony, punishable by 5 years in prison. The law also creates a new criminal offense of "mob intimidation," defined as a group of three or more people who act with a "common intent" to compel "or attempt to compel" another person to "do or refrain from doing any act," or "assume, abandon, or maintain a particular viewpoint" against their will. The offense is a first degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail. The law creates a new 3rd degree felony offense, punishable by up to 5 years in prison, for anyone who "willfully and maliciously defaces, injures, or otherwise damages by any means" statues, flags, paintings, displays, or other "memorials" and the value of the damage is more than $200. As "deface" is not defined, protesters who apply paint or graffiti to a monument in the course of a peaceful protest could face up to 5 years in prison. The law may encourage violence against protesters by creating a new affirmative defense in civil lawsuits for personal injury, death, or property damage, such that a defendant can avoid liability by establishing that the injury, death, or damage they committed "arose from" conduct by someone "acting in furtherance of a riot." Finally, the law creates a new civil right of action against a municipal government that fails to "respond appropriately to protect persons and property during a riot or unlawful assembly," making them civilly liable for damages, including personal injury or property damage. These provisions may encourage municipal governments to adopt overly aggressive law enforcement responses to protests in order to avoid lawsuits.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 6 Jan 2021; Approved by House 26 March 2021; Approved by Senate 15 April 2021; Signed by Governor DeSantis 19 April 2021

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Driver Immunity, Police Response, Riot, Traffic Interference, State Liability, Stand Your Ground

SB 443: Heightened penalties for protesters who block streets and sidewalks

Would significantly increase potential criminal penalties and introduce new civil liability for protesters who block streets or sidewalks. Under current Georgia law, it is a misdemeanor to “purposely or recklessly obstruct[]” any street, sidewalk, or “public passage” in a way that makes it “impassable without unreasonable inconvenience.” As introduced, the bill makes such offense a serious misdemeanor, publishable by a year in jail and $5,000. If the offense “results in” any injury or property destruction, it is a felony punishable by at least five years in prison and $5,000, as well as subject to civil lawsuit. As written, the felony offense does not require that someone personally injure another or damage property, but that such damages “resulted” from their obstruction. As such, peaceful demonstrators in a protest that blocks a sidewalk could seemingly face felony charges and mandatory prison time if, for instance, someone in the group engages in property destruction. 

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 29 Jan 2026; Approved by Senate 3 March 2026; Approved by House 23 March 2026

Issue(s): Civil Liability, Traffic Interference

SB 339: Mandatory sanctions for campus protesters

**Note: SB 339 was signed into law following amendments that removed the most restrictive provisions.** As originally introduced, Senate Bill 339 would have created mandatory disciplinary sanctions that could be applied to peaceful protesters on college and university campuses. The introduced bill required public universities and community colleges to adopt a policy prohibiting and subjecting to sanction individuals involved in "protests or demonstrations that infringe upon the rights of others to engage in or listen to expressive activity" on campus. Additionally, the introduced bill required administrators to suspend for at least one year or expel any student who was twice "found responsible for infringing on the expressive rights of others," such as through a protest of a campus speaker. Amendments to the bill removed the provisions related to specific sanctions, prior to the bill's passage by the Senate.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted with improvements

Introduced 19 Jan 2018; Governor Deal signed it 8 May 2018

Issue(s): Campus Protests

SB 160: Heightened penalties for blocking traffic

**Note: This bill was amended prior to passage by the legislature, to remove the provisions penalizing obstruction of a public passage.** 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: enacted with improvements

Introduced 10 Apr 2017; Approved by Senate 24 Feb 2017; Approved by House 24 March 2017 without traffic-blocking provisions; Signed by Governor Deal 8 May 2017

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

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

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

SB 471: New penalties for protests near critical infrastructure

Heightens the potential penalties for protests near oil and gas pipelines and other infrastructure by creating the offenses of "criminal infrastructure facility trespass" and "critical infrastructure facility mischief." The law provides that an individual who knowingly enters a critical infrastructure facility without permission commits critical infrastructure facility trespass, a Level 6 felony punishable by up to 30 months in prison. Under the law, recklessly or knowingly defacing such a facility constitutes critical infrastructure facility mischief, punishable by up to six years in prison as a Level 5 felony. In either case, the individual may additionally be liable to the property owner for damages, costs, and attorney's fees. An individual found to have conspired with someone who commits either offense may also be liable for a fine of $100,000. The law newly defines "critical infrastructure facility" under Indiana law to include a range of oil, gas, electric, water, telecommunications, and railroad facilities, as well as any "facility that is substantially similar" to one of the listed facilities. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 14 Jan 2019; Approved by Senate 7 Feb 2019; Approved by House 25 March 2019; Signed by Governor Holcomb on 6 May 2019

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure

SF 342: Heightened penalties for protesters convicted of "riot," "unlawful assembly," or blocking traffic, and immunity for drivers who injure them

Introduces felony penalties for the offense of "riot," previously an aggravated misdemeanor, such that the offense is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and $7,500. Preexisting law defines "riot" as a group of three or more people assembled "in a violent manner," at least one of whom uses any unlawful force or violence against another person or causes property damage. The law also converts "unlawful assembly" from a simple to an aggravated misdemeanor. Preexisting law defines "unlawful assembly" as a group of three or more people, any of whom are acting "in a violent manner," and who intend that any of them will commit an offense. Under the law, it is a serious (rather than simple) misdemeanor, punishable by one year in jail and a $1,875 fine, to "obstruct" a sidewalk, street, or "other public way" with the intent to hinder its use by others. If an individual obstructs a sidewalk or street while "present during an unlawful assembly," it is an aggravated misdemeanor, punishable by 2 years in jail and a $6,250 fine. If an individual obstructs a sidewalk or street while "present during a riot," it is a Class D felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $7,500 fine. Under the law, a driver who injures someone who is participating in a "protest, demonstration, riot, or unlawful assembly," engaging in "disorderly conduct," and blocking traffic, is immune from civil liability as long as the driver was exercising "due care" and the protester did not have a permit to be in the street. The law would also allow law enforcement who experience a physical or other injury while on duty to pursue civil damages from a person, group, or organization. Finally, the law creates a new felony offense for "defacing" public property, "including a monument or statue." The offense, a Class D felony, is punishable by up to 5 years in prison, a $7,500, and mandatory restitution for any property damage. This law was introduced and passed by the Senate as SF 534, but passed by the House as an amendment to SF 342.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 1 Mar 2021; Approved by Senate 10 March 2021, Approved by House 14 April 2021, Signed by Governor 16 June 2021

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

SB 172: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines

Creates four new criminal offenses that could capture the conduct of peaceful protesters near pipelines. Under the law, entering or remaining in a "critical infrastructure" facility, or on property containing such a facility if it is posted with signs or fenced off, is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $2,500 fine. Trespassing with intent to "tamper with" a critical infrastructure facility, or to "impede or inhibit" its operations, is a Level 7 felony, punishable by approximately 2 years in prison. Actually, knowingly "tampering with" the facility is a Level 6 felony, punishable by approximately 3 years in prison, and doing so with the intent to impede or inhibit the facility's operations is a Level 5 felony, punishable by approximately 4 years in prison. The law also creates a broad new definition of critical infrastructure," which includes among many other things "a portion of any belowground or aboveground oil, gas, hazardous liquid or chemical pipeline" or any storage, processing, or distribution facility for crude oil or natural gas. When it was introduced, the law included new penalties for "defacing" and "vandalizing" critical infrastructure; civil liability for any person or "entity" that provided compensation to someone to commit the offenses described above; and added the trespass and damage offenses above to the underlying crimes that could be prosecuted under the state's RICO law. These provisions were removed prior to the law's enactment. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 8 Feb 2021; Approved by Senate 2 March 2021; Approved by House 30 March 2021; Signed by Governor Kelly 9 April 2021

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

HB 399: New penalties for protesters at the capitol

Creates serious new criminal offenses that can cover peaceful protesters at the state capitol, as well as anyone who “conspires” with or otherwise supports them. The first new offense applies to someone who enters the capitol, or impedes 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 is subject to the same penalties as actually engaging in it. It is a Class B misdemeanor (punishable by up to 3 months in jail) for a first incident, and a Class A misdemeanor (up to one year in jail) for subsequent incident. The law creates a second, more serious offense for someone who engages 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. As written, the offense could cover a demonstrator who shouts a single chant during a legislative hearing. “Conspir[ing]” to engage in such conduct or “facilitat[ing]” another person to engage in the conduct is subject to the same penalties as actually 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 incident. Prior to passing the bill, lawmakers added an amendment which provides that the law will not be construed "to prohibit... [a]ssembly 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. When he vetoed the bill (later overridden), Governor Beshear noted the risks it poses to lawful First Amendment activity.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 6 Feb 2025; Approved by House 7 March 2025; Approved by Senate 13 March 2025; Vetoed by Governor Beshear 25 March 2025; Veto overridden 27 March 2025

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

HB 44: New penalties for protests near pipelines and other infrastructure

Creates new potential criminal and civil penalties for protests around oil or gas pipelines and other infrastructure facilities. Like HB 238, introduced in the 2019 session, HB 44 amends the definition of "key infrastructure assets" under Kentucky law to include "natural gas or petroleum pipelines." Encompassed facilities and properties designated "key infrastructure assets" are not limited to areas that are fenced off or posted by "no entry" signs. Trespass onto "key infrastructure assets" is a Class B misdemeanor for the first offense (up to three months in jail) and a Class A misdemeanor for subsequent offenses (up to one year in jail). As introduced, the bill created a new offense for a person who "intentionally or wantonly... tampers with, impedes, or inhibits operations of a key infrastructure asset." This conduct would comprise "criminal mischief in the first degree"--a Class D felony, which under Kentucky law can be punished by up to five years in prison. 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, could presumably have fallen under this definition. Prior to the law's enactment, lawmakers removed the language penalizing activity that "impeded" or "inhibited" operations of infrastructure like a pipeline. The enacted version instead penalizes "tamper[ing] with the operations of a key infrastructure asset... in a manner that renders the operations harmful or dangerous." The introduced bill also provided that any "person" (which under Kentucky law could include an organization) may be civilly liable if they "knowingly compensate[] or remunerate[]" another person to commit criminal mischief on a key infrastructure asset. Prior to enactment, this was narrowed to anyone who "knowingly directs or causes a person" to commit the tampering offense.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 29 Aug 2019; Prefiled as BR 204 on 29 August 2019; Approved by House 10 February 2020; Approved by Senate 5 March 2020; Signed by Governor Beshear on 16 March 2020

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

HB 737: Vague ban on residential protests

Broadly criminalizes participating in a protest within 50 feet of a residence that “threatens to disrupt, or harasses” an individual’s “right to control or use” their residence. The law does not make exceptions for protests that take place in public parks or on sidewalks—traditional public forums—that may be within 50 feet of residential buildings. Nor does the law require any intent on the part of protesters to target a specific residence or to harass or disturb specific residents. The law also does not require that a protest actually disrupt an individual's right to use their residence, only that it "threaten" to do so. It is also unclear what would constitute "harassing" an individual's right to use their residence, for the purpose of the law.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 18 Mar 2024; Approved by House 9 April 2024; Approved by Senate 20 May 2024; Signed by Governor Landry 18 June 2024

HB 383: Civil immunity for drivers who hit protesters

Limits the civil liability of drivers who injure or kill protesters who were unlawfully in the street. The law provides that if a driver hits someone who was illegally “blocking a roadway,” the driver cannot be sued for any injury, death, or damage if he “reasonably believe[d]” that he was in immediate danger of injury and was trying to “retreat or escape.” The sponsor cited a rise in protests across the country as motivation for the bill.     

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 29 Feb 2024; Approved by House 8 April 2024; Approved by Senate 20 May 2024; Signed by Governor Landry 11 June 2024

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Traffic Interference

HB 205: New racketeering penalties for protesters

Adds nonviolent protest-related offenses to the underlying crimes that can be prosecuted under Louisiana’s racketeering law, which carries steep penalties. Offenses that are now covered by the racketeering law include “simple obstruction" of a road or highway, “riot,” “inciting to riot,” "institutional vandalism," and “aiding and abetting others to enter or remain on premises where forbidden.” As such, people who participate in a street protest that makes cars' movement on a road “more difficult” (a minor misdemeanor offense) could be charged with a violation of Louisiana’s racketeering law if they did so more than once and as part of an enterprise with others. Louisiana law defines “riot” broadly, requiring no actual violence or damage but three or more people engaged in a “public disturbance” that creates a “danger of injury or damage” by an “imminent threat of tumultuous and violent conduct,” so individuals who participate in tumultuous protests could likewise be charged with racketeering. The law also adds “criminal damage to a critical infrastructure” to the racketeering law, such that certain civil disobedience actions near pipelines and other infrastructure, including sites under construction, could be covered as well. Racketeering violations are punishable by up to 50 years in prison with hard labor and a one million dollar fine.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 26 Feb 2024; Approved by House 2 April 2024; Approved by Senate 14 May 2024; Signed by Governor Landry 10 June 2024

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure, Riot, Trespass

HB 127: Heightened penalties for street protesters and organizers

Increases existing penalties for impeding traffic and creates a new offense that could cover individuals who plan or organize protests that would impede traffic. Under prior law in Louisiana, engaging in conduct that makes movement on any road “more difficult” was a misdemeanor, punishable by six months in jail and $200. The law adds an offense of “conspiracy” or “aiding and abetting” of others to engage in such conduct. As written, the new offense does not require that that the protest or other act actually take place or that it actually impede traffic. The law also increases the fine for both offenses to $750.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 22 Feb 2024; Approved by House 15 April 2024; Approved by Senate 16 May 2024; Signed by Governor Landry 10 June 2024

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

HB 727: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines

Targets protests around gas and oil pipelines by expanding the definition of "critical infrastructure" and providing for the offense of "unauthorized entry of a critical infrastructure." Under the law, "critical infrastructure" is amended to include "pipelines," "any site where the construction or improvement of [pipelines or any other listed infrastructure facility] is taking place," as well as "all structures, equipment, or other immovable or movable property located within or upon" such facilities. Unauthorized entry onto critical infrastructure property as defined above is punishable by imprisonment with or without hard labor for up to five years and a fine of $1,000. As originally introduced, the law included a new crime of "conspiracy to engage in unauthorized entry" of a critical infrastructure facility, punishable by imprisonment with or without hard labor for up to five years and a fine of $10,000, such that individuals who only planned to hold a peaceful protest on infrastructure property could be prosecuted. The amended and enacted version of the bill removed the provisions on conspiracy, however. In addition, prior to the law's enactment, provisions were added to mandate that the law would not apply to "[l]awful assembly and peaceful and orderly petition, picketing, or demonstration for the redress of grievances or to express ideas or views regarding legitimate matters of public interest."

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 26 Mar 2018; Approved by House 12 April 2018; Approved by the Senate 8 May 2018; Signed into law by Governor Edwards 30 May 2018

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass

HB 429: Terrorism penalties for protests near gas and oil facilities

Would significantly expand the definition of “critical infrastructure” and make trespass onto “critical infrastructure” with certain intent a terrorism offense under state law, such that peaceful protesters near gas and oil infrastructure could face terrorism charges. Current Louisiana law defines “critical infrastructure” broadly to include “any and all structures, sites, or equipment” located in or on certain facilities, including oil and gas storage facilities and pipelines, whether established or under construction. Under current law, it is a felony to unlawfully enter onto or remain on “critical infrastructure” after being ordered not to by an authorized person, or if the critical infrastructure is enclosed by a physical barrier. The bill would expand the definition of “critical infrastructure” to include all “oil and natural gas facilities and operations,” including “private and public roads primarily used in such operations” and “equipment” involved in such operations. The bill would additionally amend Louisiana’s “terrorism” law such that “unauthorized entry of a critical infrastructure” would qualify as a terrorism offense if committed with the intent to “intimidate” a civilian population or “influence government policy or conduct through intimidation or coercion.” Under the bill, such offense would be punishable by a minimum of 20 years with hard labor. If enacted, the bill would seemingly allow terrorism charges against individuals who demonstrate on public roads used “primarily” by gas or oil facilities in order to influence government policy.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 25 Feb 2026; Approved by House 7 April 2026

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Terrorism, Trespass

SB 35: New penalties for protesters near houses of worship

Would criminalize peaceful protests within 50 feet of a house of worship if they “threatened to disrupt” worshippers. As introduced, the bill broadly bars engaging in a protest, demonstration, or other assembly within 50 feet of a place of worship, if done in a manner that “disrupts, [or] threatens to disrupt… any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise” their right of religious freedom. Violators would be subject to a $500 fine and fifteen days' imprisonment with no possibility of probation or suspended sentence. The bill does not define “disrupt,” nor is it clear how one could “disrupt” another person. As such, individuals peacefully marching on the public sidewalk in front of a church, synagogue, or mosque could face arrest and jail time for “threaten[ing] to disrupt” worshippers, even if the marchers did not intend to disrupt or disturb their worship and no disturbance actually occurred. The bill's sponsor introduced the legislation shortly after a protest inside a church in St. Paul, MN, that resulted in arrests.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 6 Feb 2026.

SB 500: Civil immunity for drivers and others who hurt protesters

Would shield people from civil lawsuits for killing or injuring protesters in certain situations, if they were acting in self-defense. Under the bill, a person could not be civilly sued for causing death, personal injury, or property damage if they were acting in self-defense and their actions “arose from another individual’s conduct in furtherance of a riot.” Neither the bill nor existing Michigan law define what would constitute “conduct in furtherance of a riot,” a vague phrase that could cover a range of lawful and nonviolent actions connected to a protest that was deemed a “riot,” such as handing out water bottles or joining in a protest chant. If enacted, the bill could encourage violence by drivers and others against people who are participating in or supporting a protest.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Aug 2025.

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Riot

HB 4664: Heightened penalties for highway protests

Would increase the penalty for protesters who obstruct traffic on roads that are classified as highways. Under the bill, anyone who blocks or otherwise “interfere[s] with the normal flow” of traffic on a “highway” while participating in “an assembly of 10 or more individuals” commits a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 93 days in jail and a $5,000 fine. Current law provides that the offense is a civil infraction, subject to fines of up to $500. “Highways” in Michigan include streets that run through cities and have stoplights, such that protesters whose demonstration paused traffic on certain streets could face jail time if the bill were enacted.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 17 Jun 2025; Approved by House 16 September 2025

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

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. 

(See full text of bill here)

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.   

(See full text of bill here)

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.

(See full text of bill here)

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.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Feb 2025.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

SF 708: Barring public benefits for those who commit protest-related offenses

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

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 27 Jan 2025.

Issue(s): Limit on Public Benefits

SF 702 / HF 2808: 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.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 27 Jan 2025.

Issue(s): Driver Immunity

SB 2343: Requiring state permission for protests near statehouse and other state government buildings

The law requires that organizers obtain written permission from state law enforcement before holding a protest near the Mississippi statehouse or other state government buildings. As a result, state officials will be able to approve or disallow protests at the statehouse, including rallies and demonstrations against the actions of state officials. The permit requirement broadly applies to protests near state-owned buildings or any other property that is “occupied by any [state] official” or entity. It applies to protests on the streets and sidewalks “immediately adjacent” to such locations, as well as those that can be “reasonably be expected to block, impede, or otherwise hinder” access to such locations. The process for obtaining a permit is not stated in the law, but is to be determined by rules issued by the state law enforcement agency. Organizers of protests in Jackson, Mississippi, where the statehouse and most state government buildings are located, must already obtain a municipal permit to hold most protests; the law creates an additional state permitting requirement. The law also expands the jurisdiction of state law enforcement over infractions that may occur during nonviolent protests throughout the capitol city of Jackson: The law authorizes state police to make arrests for violations not only of state law, but of Jackson city ordinances “related to disturbance of the public peace” that may occur. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 16 Jan 2023; Approved by the Senate 8 February; Approved by the House 8 March; Signed by Governor Reeves 21 April 2023.

HB 1243: New Penalties for Protests Near Critical Infrastructure

Creates new potential penalties for protests near oil or gas pipelines and other infrastructure facilities, including those under construction. The law establishes two new offenses: "critical infrastructure trespass," and "impeding critical infrastructure." Critical infrastructure trespass is defined in the law as knowingly entering onto infrastructure property without authorization or not leaving once notified to depart; the offense is 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 law, such impediment is punishable by 7 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 law 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: enacted

Introduced 19 Feb 2020; Approved by House 4 March 2020; Approved by Senate 15 June 2020; Signed by Governor 25 June 2020.

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

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

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):

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

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

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

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

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

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

HB 481: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines

Heightens penalties for protests near oil pipelines and other "critical infrastructure facilities," including those under construction. The law creates an offense of trespassing on critical infrastructure, defined as willfully and knowingly entering property containing a critical infrastructure facility that is posted or fenced. The offense is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 6 months in jail or a $1,500 fine. If a person trespasses with the intent to willfully impede the facility's operations, or damage, deface, or tamper with facility equipment, the offense is a felony punishable by up to eighteen months in prison or a $4,500 fine. An organization that is found to be a conspirator in trespass on critical infrastructure is liable for fines that are ten times the amount authorized for the crime. A person who trespasses can be held civilly liable for damages to property while trespassing, and an entity or person that compensates or provides consideration to someone for trespass may be held vicariously liable for damages committed by that person. "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: enacted

Introduced 18 Feb 2021; Approved by House 2 March 2021; Approved by Senate 16 April 2021; Governor Signed 14 May 2021

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

S 1319 / A 4363: Expanded "riot" definition, new penalties for "incitement to riot," and new legal defense for people who hurt protesters

Would expand the legal definition of "riot," a third degree offense under the bill, to include any group of three or more individuals whose shared intent to engage in disorderly and violent conduct results in "imminent danger" of property damage or personal injury, or actual damage or injury. Notably, the new definition does not require that the individuals' conduct be disorderly or violent, or that they commit any actual damage or injury. Under the bill, a "riot" consisting of 25 or more people, or one that "endangers the safe movement of a vehicle," is automatically an "aggravated riot," a new crime of the second degree under the bill. As such, large groups of protesters or ones that block traffic, even temporarily, could face up to 10 years in prison, a fine of up to $150,000, or both. Under the bill, "inciting" someone to participate in a riot is a crime of the third degree, punishable by 5 years in prison. "Aggravated incitement," which results if there is property damage over $5,000 is a crime of the second degree, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The bill also creates a new criminal offense of "mob intimidation," defined as a group of three or more people who act with a "common intent" to compel "or attempt to compel" another person to "do or refrain from doing any act," or "assume, abandon, or maintain a particular viewpoint" against their will. The offense is punishable by up to 6 months in jail and a $1,000 fine. The bill could also encourage violence against protesters by creating a new affirmative defense in civil lawsuits for personal injury, death, or property damage, such that a defendant could avoid liability by establishing that the injury, death, or damage they committed "arose from" conduct by someone "acting in furtherance of a riot." Finally, the bill creates a new civil right of action against a municipal government that fails to provide "respond appropriately to protect persons and property during a riot or unlawful assembly," making them civilly liable for damages, including personal injury or property damage. These provisions, if enacted, could encourage municipal governments to adopt overly aggressive law enforcement responses to protests in order to avoid lawsuits. The same bill was proposed as S 399/A 4714 in 2024.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Jan 2026.

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

S 763 / A 737: Heightened penalties for blocking traffic, riot, disorderly conduct, and related offenses

Would make it a felony offense to purposely or recklessly obstruct a public road while engaging in "disorderly conduct" or a "riot," punishable by up to 18 months in prison and a $10,000 fine. Both "disorderly conduct" and "riot" are defined broadly under New Jersey law: "Disorderly conduct," for instance, could include "recklessly creating a risk" of "public inconvenience" by causing a "hazardous condition," or using "unreasonably loud and offensively coarse" language in a public place. The bill would also broaden the definition of "riot," such that a group of seven or more people who engage in "disorderly conduct" and cause any damage to property could face riot charges, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and $15,000. The bill would create a new felony offense for disorderly conduct in a "place of public accommodation" that is committed during a "riot." It would also establish a felony offense for chalking or using graffiti on a public monument during an unruly protest: Current law penalizes purposely defacing or damaging any public monument or structure as a disorderly persons offense, subject to six months in jail. The bill would make the same offense a felony punishable by a year and a half in prison and $10,000, if committed during a "riot." The same bill was proposed as S652/A4610 in the 2024-2025 session. 

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Jan 2026.

Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference

S 2397 / A 298: New penalties for blocking traffic and other protest-adjacent conduct

Would make it a felony offense to purposely or recklessly obstruct a public road while engaging in "disorderly conduct" or a "riot," punishable by up to a year and a half in prison and a $10,000 fine. Both "disorderly conduct" and "riot" are defined broadly under New Jersey law: "Disorderly conduct," for instance, could include "recklessly creating a risk of public inconvenience" by causing a "hazardous condition," or using "unreasonably loud and offensively coarse" language in a public place. The bill would also broaden the definition of "riot," such that a group of five or more people who engage in "disorderly conduct" and cause any damage to property or persons could face riot charges, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and $15,000. Individuals who deface a monument during an unruly protest would also face heightened penalties under the bill: Current law penalizes defacing or damaging any public monument or structure as a disorderly persons offense, subject to six months in jail. The bill would make the same offense a felony punishable by a year and a half in prison and $10,000, if committed during a "riot." The bill would create new sanctions for protest organizers and patrons, as well: Under the bill, a person who "conspires with others as an organizer, supervisor, financier or manager to commit" one of a number of crimes during a protest would be guilty of "promotion of violent, disorderly assembly" and face enhanced criminal penalties. The same bill was introduced as S834/A3489 in the 2024-2025 session.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Jan 2026.

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

S 1038 / A 1277: New penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

Would create a new disorderly persons offense "for a person, while congregating in a public place with other people who are also masked or disguised, to wear any mask or other facial obscurant or disguise with the purpose to conceal the person's identity while committing another crime or offense." The bill creates exemptions for activities related to Halloween, the weather, religious beliefs, medical purposes, or a public parade of an educational, religious, or historical character. However, it does not create an exemption for protests. As such, one engaged in identical conduct during a Halloween celebration and a protest would not face criminal liability under this proposed offense during the Halloween celebration, but could face criminal liability under this proposed offense during a demonstration. The penalty under the bill is up to 6 months in jail and a $1,000 fine. The same bill was introduced as S3578/A4804 in the 2024-2025 session.  

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Jan 2026.

Issue(s): Face Covering

SB 8599 / AB 9335: Ban on protests near houses of worship and reproductive health clinics

Would create a new criminal offense that could cover peaceful demonstrators who come within 25 feet of houses of worship or reproductive health care facilities. Under the bill, a group of two or more demonstrators who fail to maintain 25 feet from covered facilities—which the bill defines to include driveways of and “any public way or sidewalk that touches” a house of worship or reproductive health clinic—would commit a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail. Subsequent offenses would be a felony subject to up to four years in prison. As written, the bill would criminalize demonstrators regardless of their knowledge or intent regarding the nearby house of worship or clinic, and regardless of the nature of their protest. Two demonstrators in a sidewalk protest unrelated to reproductive rights could face jail time under the bill even if they had no idea they were near a reproductive health clinic. The Supreme Court has struck down similar buffer zones as unduly restricting First Amendment expressive activity.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 3 Dec 2025.

Issue(s): Trespass

S 6746: New penalties for protesters who wear a mask

Would create a new criminal offense, “concealment of identity during a protest,” that would cover peaceful protesters who wear a mask while demonstrating. Under the bill, a person who wears a mask or facial covering that disguises their face “so as to conceal the identity of the wearer” while “involved in a lawful assembly, unlawful assembly, protest, or riot” commits the offense. The bill provides an exception for masks and other face coverings worn as protection from weather, for religious reasons, for medical purposes, or as a costume for a holiday or exhibition. While only a violation, the new offense would restrict individuals’ ability to protest lawfully while remaining anonymous, for instance to avoid retaliation.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 21 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): Face Covering, Riot

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.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 3 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): Riot

A 4153 / S 5911: Heightened penalties for "incitement to riot"

Would increase the penalty for incitement to riot from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class E felony, punishable by up to 4 years in prison. Under current New York law, a person can be convicted of inciting a riot if "he urges ten or more persons to engage in tumultuous and violent conduct of a kind likely to create public alarm." The bill does not define what "urges" could include; similar language has been found by courts to be unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The same bill was introduced in the 2021-2022 and 2023-2024 legislative sessions. 

(See full text of bill here)

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. 

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 8 Jan 2025.

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

S 534 / A 11086: 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.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 8 Jan 2025.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

HB 237: Heightened penalties for street protesters and masked protesters

Increases penalties for protesters who block traffic and for masked protesters who break any law. The law makes it a Class A1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 150 days in jail and a fine, to willfully impede traffic while participating in a demonstration on a street or highway. Second and subsequent offenses would be a Class H felony, punishable by up to 25 months in prison. Under the law, “organizers” of street protests can be held civilly liable for any injury resulting from delays caused by the obstruction of an emergency vehicle. The law does not define “organizer,” such that anyone involved in the planning of a protest might be covered, nor does it require that the “organizer” have any intent or knowledge that an emergency vehicle would be obstructed. Additionally, the law narrows the health-related exception to North Carolina’s ban on wearing masks in public, requiring that a mask worn for health or safety reasons must be a “medical or surgical grade” mask worn “to prevent[] the spread of contagious disease.” The law broadens the authority of law enforcement and third parties to require someone to remove their masks in such cases. Under the law, someone convicted of any offense, including nonviolent protest-related offenses, can face steeper punishment if they were wearing a mask or other face covering at the time, regardless of the reason for doing so. The bill’s sponsor cited recent pro-Palestine protests on college campuses, in which some protesters have worn masks.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 7 May 2024; Approved by Senate 15 May 2024; Approved by House 11 June 2024; Vetoed by Governor Cooper 21 June 2024; Veto overridden 27 June 2024

Issue(s): Civil Liability, Face Covering, Traffic Interference

HB 40: HEIGHTENED PENALTIES FOR "RIOT" AND RELATED OFFENSES

Increases the penalty for an individual who "incites or urges another to engage in a riot," if a riot occurs and results in $1,500 of property damage or injury. In such a case, the individual is guilty of a Class E felony, punishable by more than two years in prison, even if they did not personally cause any damage or injury. Under the law, an individual convicted of "riot" or incitement offenses is also civilly 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. Preexisting 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. Under this definition, no violence or damage need occur for participants in a gathering to be arrested for and charged with "riot." While the new law would add a limitation requiring an “overt act” in order for someone to be convicted of a riot or incitement to riot offense, that requirement could be read broadly to include peaceful chanting or marching with a crowd that is deemed to be a “riot.” Finally, the law 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 24 hours, and may require that they stay away from places where the "riot" occurred. The text of HB 40 is nearly identical to the amended version of HB 805 that passed both the North Carolina House and Senate in 2021 before being vetoed by the Governor.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 1 Feb 2023; Approved by House 8 February 2023; Approved by Senate 9 March 2023; Became law without Governor Cooper's signature 21 March 2023

Issue(s): Civil Liability, Riot

SB 58: New penalties for protests near pipelines

Introduces new potential criminal penalties and civil liability for peaceful protests near existing and planned pipelines and other energy infrastructure. The enacted version of the law makes it a Class C felony offense to knowingly and willfully “obstruct, impede, or impair” or “attempt to obstruct, impede, or impair” the services of an energy facility. The law defines “energy facility” to include any facility involved in the transmission of “electricity, fuel, or another form or source of energy,” including facilities that are under construction or otherwise not functioning. As such, a group of people protesting the construction of a fossil fuel pipeline could face more than 15 years in prison and a mandatory $250,000 fine if they impede or impair the construction of a pipeline, for instance by blocking workers’ access to the pipeline construction site. Under the law, such protesters, along with anyone who “aides or abets, solicits, conspires, or lends material support” to their act of impeding construction could also be sued in civil court by someone whose property was damaged, for an amount equivalent to three times the actual damage as well as court costs and attorneys' fees. 

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 1 Feb 2023; Approved by Senate 14 March 2023; Approved by House 14 June 2023; Signed by Governor Cooper 19 June 2023

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

SB 484: Enabling companies and other employers to sue protesters

Would allow any employer—including corporations, small businesses, and state and local government agencies—to sue people who protest near the employer’s place of employment. The bill would dramatically broaden the state’s “Workplace Violence Prevention Act,” which currently allows such suits only by employers on behalf of employees who were harassed or threatened by someone. The bill would amend the law to allow employers to sue on their own behalf. The bill would also significantly expand the grounds for such suits, such that they could be brought against any individual who engages in “mass picketing” that “hinder[s] or prevent[s]… the pursuit of any lawful work or employment,” or who “obstruct[s] or interfer[es] with the entrance to or egress from any place of employment,” or who “obstruct[s] or interfer[es] with free and uninterrupted use of public roads, streets, highways, railways, airports, or other ways of travel.” As such, a company could for instance sue people who stage a protest on the side of the road that slows traffic near the company’s offices, retail stores, or factory. The law does not require that the employer suffer any economic or other harm in order to bring such an action. The action could result in a “civil no-contact order,” under which a court could order the individual or group to “not to visit… or otherwise interfere with the employer or… [their] operations”, as well as any “other relief deemed necessary and appropriate by the court.” Failure to abide by the order—for instance, by continuing to protest—could result in fines or imprisonment under the law. While the bill provides that it is not “intended, or shall be construed, to conflict with, restrict, limit, or infringe upon rights protected by the North Carolina or United States Constitution,” it at the same time covers a significant amount of First Amendment protected conduct, and the prospect of a costly lawsuit could be sufficient to deter individuals from protesting in the first place.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 25 Mar 2025; Approved by Senate 7 May 2025

Issue(s): Civil Liability, Traffic Interference

SB 300: Heightened penalties for "riot"

**Note: This bill was later amended to remove all riot provisions except the increased penalties** Would increase the penalty for engaging in a "riot," from a Class 1 misdemeanor to a Class H felony, punishable by 25 months in prison. If the "riot" resulted in property damage of over $1,500, or serious injury, anyone deemed to have engaged in the "riot" (regardless of their role in the damage or injury) could be convicted of a Class G felony, punishable by 31 months in prison. The bill would not alter North Carolina's broad definition of "riot," which does not require any actual violence or destructive activity. Under the bill, peaceful protesters in a group of three or more who present an "imminent threat of disorderly and violent conduct" that "creates a clear and present danger" of property damage or injury could face felony convictions and lengthy prison sentences. Note: A later amendment eliminated the proposed increase in penalty for engaging in a "riot." It also eliminated the proposal to make it a Class G felony for engaging in a riot that resulted in property damage over $1,500 or serious bodily injury. Instead, it replaced that proposal by making it a Class G felony if during the course of a riot a person caused over $1,500 in property damage or a Class F felony if the person during the course of a riot caused serious bodily injury or brandished a dangerous weapon or substance. It also clarified that "mere presence alone without an overt act" is not sufficient to sustain a conviction of rioting. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted with improvements

Introduced 15 Mar 2021; Approved by Senate 12 May 2021; Approved by House 18 August 2021; Signed by Governor Cooper 2 September 2021

Issue(s): Riot

HB 1226: New criminal penalties for masked protesters

Creates a serious new crime that can cover peaceful protesters who choose to wear a mask. The law makes it a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and $3,000, to wear a mask “with the intent to conceal the identity” of the wearer while “congregating in a public place with other individuals 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 worn for health, religious, or other reasons. As written, the law can cover a protester wearing a mask to avoid retaliation for their political speech, if there are other individuals in the crowd also wearing a mask—for instance, a medical mask to avoid spreading or contracting a contagious disease.   

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 13 Jan 2025; Approved by House 10 February 2025; Approved by Senate 9 April 2025; Signed by Governor Armstrong 23 April 2025

Issue(s): Face Covering

SB 2044: Heightened penalties for protests near critical infrastructure

Enhances potential penalties for individuals who protest near existing and planned gas and oil pipelines by criminalizing acts that interrupt or interfere with critical infrastructure facilities. In addition to prohibiting actual tampering with critical infrastructure property and equipment, the law prohibits "interfering, inhibiting, impeding, or preventing the construction or repair" of a critical infrastructure facility. Further, the law expands the definition of "critical infrastructure facility" to include a "site or location designated or approved for the construction of a facility" such as an oil or gas pipeline. Intentional interruption of a critical infrastructure facility, including by interfering with pipeline construction, is a Class C felony under the law, subject to a penalty of five years' imprisonment, a fine of $10,000, or both. The law also creates organizational liability for such acts: An organization found to have "conspired" with an individual who committed the interference could be criminally liable for ten times the fee imposed on the individual, or up to $100,000. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 3 Jan 2019; Approved by Senate 15 Feb 2019; Approved by House 25 March 2019; Signed by Governor Burgum 10 April 2019

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure

HB 1426: Heightened penalties for riot offences

Increases the penalties imposed for riot offenses. Under the law, participation in a riot is a Class A rather than Class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison and a $3,000 fine. Engaging in a riot involving more than 100 people is made a Class B felony, subject to 10 years in prison and a $20,000 fine. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 16 Jan 2017; Governor Burgum signed the law on 23 Feb 2017

Issue(s): Riot

HB 1293: Expanded scope of criminal trespass

Expands the scope of criminal trespass activity under state law such that it could encompass protests, demonstrations, or other gatherings on private property, if notice against trespass is "clear from the circumstances." The offense could be punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a $1,500 fine. The law also creates an additional, noncriminal trespass offense and allows officers to issue a citation with a $250 fine for trespassing. The law was part of a package of legislation introduced in response to the Dakota Access Pipeline protests.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 12 Jan 2017; Signed by Governor Burgum 23 Feb 2017

Issue(s): Trespass

HB 1304: New penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

Prohibits the wearing of masks, hoods, or other device that "conceals any portion" of an individual's face while committing a criminal offense, in order to avoid recognition or identification. As drafted, the offense could encompass, e.g., individuals wearing hooded clothing while participating in a protest and also committing a minor offense such as jaywalking. Under the law, commission of the offense comprises a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $3,000 fine. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 12 Jan 2017; Governor Burgum signed it 23 Feb 2017

Issue(s): Face Covering

SB 33: New penalties for protests near critical infrastructure

The law heightens penalties for protests near oil and gas pipelines and other infrastructure by expanding the definitions of "criminal trespass" and "criminal mischief." The law provides that entering and remaining on marked or fenced-off property that contains a "critical infrastructure facility" is criminal trespass and 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" the facility would constitute aggravated trespass, a third degree felony--punishable by up to ten years in prison and a $20,000 fine. Knowingly and "improperly tampering" with the facility would constitute "criminal mischief," likewise a third degree felony. "Critical infrastructure facility" is expansively defined to encompass oil, gas, electric, water, telecommunications, and railroad facilities among many others. The law also imposes fines on organizations found guilty of "complicity" in the trespass or mischief offenses, in the amount of ten times the maximum fine that can be imposed on an individual. Ohio law defines "complicity" to include soliciting, procuring, aiding, abetting, or conspiring with another to commit an offense. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 12 Feb 2019; Approved by Senate 1 May 2019; Approved by House 17 December 2020; Signed by Governor DeWine 11 January 2021

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure

SB 53: New civil liability for protesters and supporters

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

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 28 Jan 2025.

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

SB 743: Steep penalties for protests near places of worship

Creates sweeping, vaguely-defined new crimes that can cover peaceful protesters near any place where people are engaged in religious worship, or along routes to such places. The new law increases penalties and expands the scope of a preexisting offense for “willfully disturb[ing], interrupt[ing], or disquiet[ing]” an “assemblage of people met for religious worship.” Under the new law it is a serious misdemeanor to knowingly approach someone and engage in certain expressive activity, including chanting or holding signs, within 100 feet of a place where people are meeting for religious worship. The bill explicitly includes such conduct occurring on public sidewalks. As written, the offense could seemingly cover demonstrators who happen to be marching past a church or synagogue and encounter worshippers on the sidewalk outside, even fleetingly. The law also creates a serious misdemeanor for “obstructing in any manner” traffic along any highway within a mile of a place where people are meeting for religious worship. The offense does not require that an individual know or intend to impede access to such a place; as written, it would seemingly cover protest activity that slows highway traffic anywhere within a mile of any house of worship—or any other location where there is an “assemblage of people met for religious worship,” such as a prayer circle in a public park. The offenses are punishable by up to one year in jail and $500 for a first offense; subsequent offenses are a felony subject to up to two years in prison and $1,000. Lawmakers advanced the bill in 2025, but adopted it in emergency sessions in 2026 citing recent protests including one inside a church in St. Paul, MN.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 25 Mar 2025; Approved by Senate 27 March 2025; Approved by House 6 May 2025; Approved by Senate 4 February 2026; Signed by Governor Stitt 6 February 2026

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

HB 1674: Penalties for protesters who block traffic, immunity for drivers who hit protesters, and liability for organizations that work with protesters

**Note: Portions of HB1674 were preliminarily enjoined by a federal district judge on October 27, 2021, temporarily blocking enforcement of the law's 1) penalties for protesters who obstruct traffic, and 2) penalties for organizations that "conspire" with someone who is convicted of certain protest-related offenses.** Creates new penalties for protesters who obstruct traffic while participating in a "riot," and protects drivers who "unintentionally" hit them. Under the law, a person who participated in a "riot" and "obstructed" the "normal use" of a public street or highway, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in prison, a $5,000 fine, and restitution for any property damage that occurs. The law defines "obstruct" to include rendering the street or highway "unreasonably inconvenient or hazardous" for cars' passage, including by "standing" on the street or highway. "Riot" is broadly defined under existing Oklahoma law, to include a group of three or more people who make "any threat to use force." The new law also shields from liability a driver who injures or kills someone while "fleeing from a riot," as long as they did so "unintentionally," were "exercising due care," and held a "reasonable belief" that they needed to flee to protect themselves. Under the law, such a driver cannot be held civilly or criminally liable for the injuries or death they caused. Finally, the law provides that an organization found to have "conspired" with individuals who are found guilty of certain offenses--including "unlawful assembly," "riot," "incitement to riot," refusing to aid in the arrest of a "rioter," and remaining at the scene of a "riot" after being ordered to disperse--may be fined ten times the maximum amount of fine authorized for the individual's offense.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 2 Feb 2021; Approved by House 10 March 2021; Approved by Senate 14 April 2021; Signed by Governor Stitt 21 April 2021

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

HB 2095: Racketeering penalties for those involved in "unlawful assemblies"

Adds "unlawful assemblies" to the offenses that can be prosecuted as "racketeering activity" under Oklahoma's RICO statute. As a result, an organization or individual found to have "attempted" or "conspired" with individuals to engage in or encourage a protest that is deemed an "unlawful assembly" can be prosecuted under RICO and subject to felony penalties. Oklahoma law broadly defines "unlawful assembly" to include a group of three or more people who gather without lawful authority in a manner "as is adapted to disturb the public peace." (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 1 Feb 2021; Approved by House 8 March 2021; Approved by Senate 21 April 2021; Signed by Governor Stitt 28 April 2021

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders

HB 1123: New penalties for protests near critical infrastructure

Targets protests around certain public facilities by creating a new criminal offense for trespass onto property containing "critical infrastructure." The law's extensive list of "critical infrastructure" facilities ranges from a petroleum refinery to a telephone pole. Willfully entering onto property containing critical infrastructure without permission is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to $1,000 or six month in jail, or both. Evidence of intent to damage or otherwise harm the operations of the infrastructure facility would make the offence a felony, punishable by at least $10,000 (with no maximum provided) or imprisonment for one year, or both; actual damage or vandalizing of the facility is punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $100,000 fine. Organizations found to have "conspired" with perpetrators are liable for up to $1,000,000. The sponsor of the law told a House of Representatives committee that it was prompted by the Dakota Access Pipeline protests in North Dakota. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 6 Feb 2017; Signed into law 3 May 2017

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure, Trespass

HB 2128: Heightened penalties for protesters who trespass onto private property

Increases the potential penalties levied on individuals who protest on private property without permission. The law allows prosecutors to hold anyone arrested for or convicted of trespass liable for any damages to personal or real property caused while trespassing. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 6 Feb 2017; Governor Fallin signed into law 15 May 2017

Issue(s): Trespass

HB 3581: Heightened penalties for blocking traffic, wearing a mask, or engaging in vandalism during a “riot”

Would increase penalties under Oklahoma’s anti-rioting law that could cover nonviolent demonstrators. Oklahoma law defines “riot” to include a group of three people who threaten to use force or violence, as well as those who actually use any force or violence. As such, demonstrators can be prosecuted for “riot” even if they didn’t engage in any violence. Under current law, it is a misdemeanor to “unlawfully obstruct the normal use” of any road while participating in a riot; the bill would make such obstruction a Class D3 felony, punishable by up to two years in prison and $5,000. Current law also makes it a felony to participate in a “riot” while “disguised.” The bill would amend this offense to cover anyone who wears a “mask, hood, covering, or disguise” “without lawful excuse” and “for the purpose of concealing his or her identity.” The bill does not specify what would constitute a “lawful excuse;” it is unclear whether, for instance, masks worn to avoid retaliation for political speech would be exempt. The bill would also expand criminal liability for demonstrators who “vandalize[]” or “deface[]” government-owned property, making such act a felony punishable by at least two and up to 10 years in prison.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 15 Jan 2026; Approved by House 11 March 2026; Approved by Senate 27 April 2026

Issue(s): Face Covering, Riot, Traffic Interference

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.

(See full text of bill here)

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.”

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Jan 2025.

Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference

HB 2772: Criminalizing Certain Protests as Domestic Terrorism

**Note: This bill was amended prior to its passage and provisions that would have covered peaceful protest activity were significantly narrowed.** As introduced, the bill would have created a sweeping new crime of "domestic terrorism" that would include if a person intentionally attempted to cause "disruption of daily life" that "severely affects the population, infrastructure, environment, or government functioning of this state." Under this definition, a peaceful protest that blocked traffic in a major commercial district could be defined as domestic terrorism, a Class B felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. Lawmakers substantially amended the bill prior to its enactment, however rights groups argue that it could still cover certain acts of civil disobedience. Under the enacted law, “domestic terrorism” in the first degree is a Class B felony and includes intentionally destroying or substantially damaging “critical infrastructure,” with the intent to disrupt the services provided by critical infrastructure. Attempting to destroy or substantially damage critical infrastructure is a Class C felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a fine of $125,000. “Critical infrastructure” is broadly defined to include pipelines and roads.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted with improvements

Introduced 9 Jan 2023; Approved by House 8 June 2023; Approved by Senate 23 June 2023; Signed by Governor Kotek 4 August 2023

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Terrorism, Traffic Interference

HB 1831: New penalties for masked protesters

Would make it a crime to demonstrate while wearing a mask in some circumstances. Under the bill, it would be a third-degree misdemeanor to wear a mask or other device to conceal one’s face, voice, or identity while in a public place. The bill provides for certain exemptions, including “traditional holiday costumes,” masks worn for religious purposes, medical masks worn to prevent the spread of disease, as well as costumes and masks worn during a “parade, ritual, initiation, ceremony, celebration or similar type of gathering” for which a permit has been obtained. It is not clear whether the last category of exemptions would apply to masks worn during permitted protests, and no exemption in the bill would cover masks worn during spontaneous or otherwise unpermitted protests. If enacted, a demonstrator wearing a mask to avoid retaliation for their participation in a spontaneous protest could face up to a year in jail. Sponsors of the bill have said that the legislation is directed at pro-Palestine protesters who have worn masks.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 8 Oct 2025.

Issue(s): Face Covering

SB 913: Increased penalties for certain offenses if combined with "riot"

Would make a violation of the state's law on "riot" an aggravating factor for sentencing of certain other crimes. Under the bill, steeper criminal penalties would apply, for instance, to the offense of trespass, if the offense was committed while the defendent engaged in a protest that was deemed a "riot." Pennsylvania law defines "riot" broadly to include participating in "disorderly conduct" with two or more people with intent to facilitate a misdemeanor--a definition that could cover, for instance, a noisy protest that involves a misdemeanor offense like blocking the sidewalk. As a result, under the bill, someone who trespasses while part of such a protest could face additional prison time. 

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 31 Jul 2025.

Issue(s): Riot, Trespass

SB 915: New felony penalties for protest organizers and funders

Would create a new felony offense for knowingly organizing, controlling, or financing a "riot." The bill defines "financing" as "contributing more than a de minimus amount of money or materials to aid in a riot"; "organizing" is defined as "knowingly arranging or planning" a riot. Pennsylvania law defines "riot" broadly to include participating in "disorderly conduct" with two or more people with intent to facilitate a misdemeanor--a definition that could cover, for instance, a noisy protest of three people that involves a misdemeanor like blocking the sidewalk. As a result, under the bill, someone who knowingly plans such a protest, or donates to an advocacy group to support such a protest, could face up to seven years in prison. 

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 31 Jul 2025.

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Riot

SB 683: New penalties for protests near pipelines and other infrastructure

Would create several new criminal offenses that could cover fossil fuel protesters and protest organizers. Under the bill, “conspir[ing] with another person” to trespass onto “critical infrastructure” property would be a third-degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum $5,000 fine. The bill defines “critical infrastructure” broadly to include a range of posted or fenced-off areas containing facilities for gas and oil production, storage, and distribution, including above- and belowground pipelines, as well as a number of electric, water, telecommunications, and other utilities—whether in operation or under construction. As such, under the bill, planning a protest that would enter onto a pipeline construction site would be a crime punishable by up to a year in jail, even if the protest never takes place. Actually trespassing onto a pipeline construction site or other “critical infrastructure” property would likewise be punishable by up to a year in jail, under the bill, and doing so with intent to “vandalize, deface, tamper with equipment or impede or inhibit operations” would be a third-degree felony, punishable by up to three years in prison. As the bill does not further define “impede or inhibit,” a protest that entered onto a pipeline construction site with the goal of even fleetingly delaying construction could seemingly be covered by the felony offense. Willfully “vandalizing” or “defacing” “critical infrastructure,” or conspiring to do so, would be a third-degree felony as well. The bill further provides that the owner of “critical infrastructure” may sue anyone who is convicted of or merely arrested for an offense under the bill and claim damages for any harm to property, “including damages to pipeline construction."

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 28 Apr 2025.

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

SB 2296 / HB 7550: Heightened penalties for highway protests

Would create a new felony offense and civil cause of action that could cover some street protesters. Under the bill it would be a new felony if someone intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly “[s]tands, sits, kneels, or otherwise loiters” on a state or federal highway, if their conduct “could reasonably be construed as interfering with the lawful movement of traffic,” or if it caused “the interruption, obstruction, distraction, or delay of any motorist.” As defined, the offense could cover people whose sidewalk demonstration overflows onto one of Rhode Island’s many state highways—some of which are two-lane roads with stoplights and crosswalks—and even momentarily “distracts” or “delays” a passing driver. The bill prescribes penalties of at least one and up to three years in prison for a first offense; at least three and up to five years for a second offense; and at least five and up to 10 for a third offense. The bill further provides that any person may institute a civil action for violation of the offense.  

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 23 Jan 2026.

Issue(s): Civil Liability, Traffic Interference

SB 151: New penalties for protests near pipelines and other infrastructure

Heightens potential penalties for protests near oil and gas pipelines and other infrastructure. Under the law, knowingly trespassing on property containing a critical infrastructure facility is a misdemeanor punishable by a year in prison and a $2,000 fine. Knowingly tampering with any property and as a direct result interfering, inhibiting, or impeding the maintenance or construction of a critical infrastructure facility is a felony punishable by two years in prison and/or a $4,000 fine. A person or organization found to be a "conspirator" in any of the above offenses faces a range of criminal fines. Any owner, lessee, or operator of any critical infrastructure facility where a crime is committed under one of the above provisions is designated a "victim" under South Dakota law, which entitles them to restitution and other victims' rights. As such, a company that owns a critical infrastructure facility can seek restitution from an individual protester convicted of any of the above provisions, as well as from any person or entity found to be a "conspirator." (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 4 Feb 2020; Approved by Senate 27 February 2020; Approved by House 9 March 2020; Signed by Governor March 18 2020

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure, Trespass

HB 1117: New criminal and civil liability for "incitement to riot"

Revises the state's laws on rioting and replaces a "riot-boosting" law that was passed in 2019 but later blocked by a federal court as unconstitutional. The law revises the definition of "riot" under South Dakota law to be "any intentional use of force or violence by three or more persons, acting together and without authority of law, to cause any injury to any person or any damage to property." Under the law, "incitement to riot" is a new felony offense, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and $10,000 in fines, and defined as conduct that "urges" three or more people to use force or violence to cause personal injury or property damage, if the force or violence is "imminent" and the urging is likely to "incite or produce" the force or violence. The law defines "urging" to include "instigating, inciting, or directing," but excludes "oral or written advocacy of ideas or expression of belief that does not urge" imminent force or violence. Under the law, individuals may additionally be civilly liable for riot and incitement to riot, enabling lawsuits against protesters by the state, counties, or municipalities. Both 2019's "riot-boosting" law and HB 1117 appear to target protests against construction of the Keystone XL and other pipelines.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 29 Jan 2020; Approved by House 18 February 2020; Approved by Senate 5 March 2020; Signed by Governor Noem 23 March 2020

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

SB 189: Expanded civil liability for protesters and protest funders

**Note: According to an October 24, 2019 settlement agreement that resulted from a constitutional challenge to SB189, the state will not enforce many of the provisions of the law that could be applied to peaceful protesters and organizations that support them.** SB189 created new civil liability for "riot boosters." South Dakota criminal law defines "riot" broadly such that it can cover some forms of peaceful protest; as originally enacted, SB189 created civil liability for a person or organization that "does not personally participate in any riot but directs, advises, encourages, or solicits other persons participating in the riot to acts of force or violence." It was unclear what might have constituted "advice" or "encouragement" to carry out an act of force, such that an individual who shouted encouragement on the sidelines of a disruptive protest, or organizations that provided advice about conducting a peaceful but disruptive protest, might have been implicated. Following the October 24, 2019 settlement, the state will not enforce this provision. Nonetheless, enforceable provisions of the law still establish civil liability for any person or organization that is advised or encouraged by another, and that "makes any threat to use force or violence, if accompanied by immediate power of execution" in a group of three or more persons. The state or a third party may sue the person or organization for extensive civil damages, including punitive damages. Further, enforceable provisions of the law provide that a person or organization is liable for "riot boosting" if they engage in it personally "or through any employee, agent, or subsidiary." Accordingly, individuals, organizations, and funders may still be held civilly liable for substantial amounts of money for any involvement in a disruptive protest. Damages recovered by the state shall, according to the law, be deposited in a "riot boosting recovery fund," which may be used to pay for the state's response to disruptive protests. The law was introduced in response to pipeline protests in other states and ahead of construction of the Keystone XL pipeline in South Dakota. 

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 4 Mar 2019; Approved by Senate 7 March 2019; Approved by House 7 March 2019; Signed by Governor Noem 27 March 2019

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

SB 176: Expanding governor's power to restrict certain protests

Expands the governor's authority to curtail protest activities on public lands and restricts protests that interfere with highway traffic. The law enables the governor and sheriff to prohibit gatherings of 20 or more people on public land, if the gathering might damage the land or interfere with the renter's use of the land. The law enables South Dakota's Department of Transportation to prohibit or otherwise restrict an individual or vehicle from stopping, standing, parking, or being present on any highway if it interferes with traffic. The law also expands the crime of trespass, providing that an individual who defies a posted order not to enter a zone where assembling has been prohibited would be guilty of criminal trespass. Obstructing traffic or committing criminal trespass are classified as Class 1 misdemeanors, punishable by one year in jail or a $2,000 fine, or both. The law was proposed by Governor Daugaard to address potential pipeline protests. 

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 3 Mar 2017; Signed by Governor Daugaard 14 March 2017

Issue(s): Traffic Interference, Trespass

SB 2222 / HB 2109: New civil liability for protest organizers and supporters

Establishes a new basis for civil lawsuits against protest organizers and supporters. Under the law, a claimant may seek damages from someone who compensates another person to participate in a protest, if the participant’s conduct satisfies the elements of certain crimes. The specified crimes include “disorderly conduct,” “obstructing a highway or passageway,” and “disrupting meetings,” among others, though the law does not require that the participant was ever convicted in order for civil liability to apply. The law defines “compensation” broadly to include not only salary or payment but any “valuable consideration,” and defines a “demonstration” as a public gathering of one or more people “protesting against something or expressing views on a political issue.” Under the law, groups whose employees engage in protests or advocacy as part of their work could face civil lawsuits, based on allegations that the employee was engaged in disorderly conduct (which can include making “unreasonable noise”), blocking a sidewalk, or disrupting public hearings or other government meetings.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 2 Feb 2026; Approved by Senate 12 March 2026; Approved by House 26 March 2026; Signed by Governor Lee 13 April 2026

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

SB 30 / HB 55: Expanded law enforcement powers and potential new penalties for protesters

Creates new crimes and increases penalties for existing offenses that could be used against peaceful protesters. The new law makes it a Class B misdemeanor offense, punishable by up to 6 months in jail, for a person to approach within 25 feet of a police officer after being warned not to, if the officer is engaged in official duties. Under the law, police would have expansive discretion to issue such a warning by citing "an ongoing and immediate threat to public safety," such that they could, for instance, arrest demonstrators who marched towards a police line after being warned not to, even if the demonstrators’ conduct was otherwise lawful. The law significantly increases the penalties for “civil rights intimidation,” a broadly drafted offense that could be applied to protesters who are perceived to demonstrate with the intent of “intimidating” someone from exercising their rights or because they exercised their rights. As such, for instance, protesting in a way that is deemed to “coerce” another (defined by law to include threatening to expose someone to “contempt or ridicule”) with the intent to intimidate them, would be a Class D felony punishable by up to 12 years in prison. The law newly criminalizes trespassing with the intent to intimidate, such that protesters who enter onto private property could face arrest and Class A misdemeanor charges, punishable by up to a year in jail, based on their perceived "intent to unlawfully intimidate another." The new law also makes it a Class B misdemeanor to hang unauthorized banners and signs on bridges, overpasses, or tunnels, newly criminalizing a common protest tactic.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 2 Jan 2025; Approved by Senate 14 April 2025; Approved by House 21 April 2025; Signed by Governor Lee 9 May 2025

Issue(s): Police Response, Trespass

SB 2570 / HB 2031: Heightened penalties for protesters who block streets and highways

Significantly increases the penalty for knowingly or recklessly obstructing a street, highway, “or other place used for the passage of vehicles or conveyances.” Instead of a Class A misdemeanor, as provided by prior law, the offense is now a Class D felony punishable by at least 2 and up to 12 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. As written, the law's felony offense can cover protesters who block a street or make passage "unreasonably inconvenient" even if there are no cars on it. The felony offense can also seemingly apply to protesters who block a driveway or alley, even temporarily. The law also creates a new civil cause of action, such that anyone who knowingly or recklessly blocks a street can additionally be sued for civil damages.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 23 Jan 2024; Approved by Senate 23 April 2024; Approved by House 23 April 2024; Signed by Governor Lee 9 May 2024

Issue(s): Civil Liability, Traffic Interference

SB 451 / HB 881: Mandatory penalties for expanded aggravated riot offense

Expands the definition of "aggravated riot" and creates new mandatory minimum penalties for that offense. To be convicted of "riot" under Tennessee law, a person only needs to knowingly gather with two or more people whose tumultuous and violent conduct creates "grave danger of substantial damage to property or serious bodily injury to persons or substantially obstructs law enforcement or other governmental function." For instance, one could be held guilty of riot for merely joining a large protest in which there is isolated pushing, even if no one is injured. Under preexisting law, a person could be held liable for aggravated riot if they participated in a riot where someone was injured or substantial property damage occurred, even if the person did not commit any violence nor intended violence to occur. Under the law, a person may also be guilty of aggravated riot if they participated in a riot and either participated in exchange for compensation or "traveled from outside the state with the intent to commit a criminal offense." A "criminal offense" could include, for example, temporarily blocking a street as part of a protest. "Aggravated riot" is a Class E felony, which is punishable by up to 6 years in jail and a fine of $3,000; the law also introduces a mandatory minimum of at least 45 days of imprisonment. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 8 Feb 2021; Approved by Senate 11 March 2021; Approved by House 28 April 2021; Signed by Governor 13 May 2021

Issue(s): Riot

HB 8005/SB 8005: Heightened Penalties for "Inconvenient" Protests and Protest Camps on State Property

The law heightens penalties for certain offenses that could encompass conduct by peaceful protesters. The law heightens existing criminal penalties for blocking a street, sidewalk, or "any other place used for the passage of persons, vehicles or conveyances" from a Class C to a Class A misdemeanor. Accordingly, protesters who obstruct or make it "unreasonably inconvenient" to use a street or sidewalk could face up to one year in jail. The law likewise heightens penalties for the existing offense of "obstructing" or "interfering with" a lawful meeting, procession, or gathering, from a Class B to Class A misdemeanor. Protesters who intentionally "interfere with" a meeting of the legislature or other government officials, including by staging a loud protest, could therefore face up to one year in jail. The law also targets protest encampments on the grounds of the Capitol and other areas by broadening the definition of "camping," and heightening penalties for camping on state property. As such, protesters who use or place any "piece of furniture," shelter, or structure on state property could be charged with a Class E felony, if they continue to do so 24 hours after receiving a warning. The offense would be punishable by up to six years in prison, a fine of $3,000, and restitution for any property damage. The law also amends Tennessee provisions on "riot," (which is defined broadly), including by requiring those convicted of "inciting" or "urging" a riot to pay restitution for any property damage incurred by the offense. When it was introduced, the legislation authorized the Tennessee Attorney General to intervene and prosecute offenses where there has been damage to state property, including those arising in the context of peaceful protests, if the district attorney declined to do so; however those provisions were removed prior to the law's enactment, and replaced with a requirement that district attorneys produce a report on such offenses and how they were dealt with.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 7 Aug 2020; Approved by House and Senate 12 August 2020; Signed by Governor Lee 20 August 2020

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Riot, Traffic Interference, Camping

SB 264: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines

Creates new potential penalties for protests and demonstrations that "interrupt" or "interfere with" a pipeline or pipeline construction site. The law makes it a Class E felony for an individual to knowingly "destroy, injure, interrupt or interfere with" a pipeline, pipeline facility, or related infrastructure, including if it is under construction. The offense is a Class E felony, punishable by up to six years in prison and a $3,000 fine. As introduced, the law provided that an individual or organization that causes or "aids" damage or interference would likewise be guilty of a Class E felony, however these provisions were amended out prior to the law's passage. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 29 Jan 2019; Approved by Senate 18 Feb 2019; Approved by House 30 April 2019; Signed by Governor Lee 10 May 2019

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure

SB 0902: New penalties for protesters who block traffic

Imposes a new fine on any person who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly obstructs a public highway or street "including in the course of a protest" and in doing so interferes with an emergency vehicle's access to or through the highway or street. "Emergency vehicle" is broadly defined as "any vehicle of a governmental department or public service corporation when responding to an emergency," a police or fire department vehicle, or an ambulance. Unlawful obstruction of a street or highway was already a Class C misdemeanor subject to up to 30 days in jail; the law adds a $200 fine to the penalty. Sponsors made clear that the law was aimed at protests that obstructed highways. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 9 Feb 2017; Governor Haslam signed into law 12 April 2017

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

SB 2972: New restrictions on campus protests

**Note: After the law was enacted, several of its provisions were challenged on First Amendment grounds and preliminarily enjoined by a district court. These include the requirement that campuses prohibit "expressive activities" between 10pm and 8am, and prohibit "expressive activities" in the last two weeks of a school term if they involve invited speakers, sound amplification, or drums.**

Requires public colleges and universities to adopt new limitations on campus protests that among other things would ban protest encampments, limit protesters’ ability to wear a mask, and restrict vigils and other demonstrations at night. Under the law—which revises Texas’s 2019 law on campus speech—all public colleges and universities in the state must have policies that among other things prohibit: a) erecting tents or otherwise “camping” on campus; b) wearing a mask or other disguise while engaging in “expressive activities” on campus with certain intent, including intent to “intimidate others;” c) engaging in “expressive activities” between 10pm and 8am; 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) using sound amplification while engaging in “expressive activities” during class hours if it “intimidate[s] others.” Preexisting provisions of the law define “expressive activities” broadly as “any speech or expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment,” including but not limited to assemblies, protests, speeches, carrying signs, or distributing written material. As such, colleges and universities would seemingly be required to ban all kinds of expression between 10pm and 8am, from conversations in the dining hall to someone sending a text or wearing expressive clothing. The law repeals a provision in the 2019 law that established all common outdoor areas of campus as traditional public forums where anyone could engage in First Amendment activity, and replaced it with a provision authorizing the governing boards of schools to designate select areas as public forums. 

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 14 Mar 2025; Approved by Senate 14 May 2025; Approved by House 28 May 2025; Signed by Governor Abbott 20 June 2025

Issue(s): Campus Protests, Face Covering, Camping

HB 3557: New criminal and civil penalties for protests around critical infrastructure

Creates new criminal sanctions and expansive civil liability for protests near pipelines and other infrastructure facilities, including those under construction. The law provides for four new criminal offenses. One, "impairing or interrupting operation of critical infrastructure facility," is defined as entering or remaining on facility property and intentionally or knowingly "impair[ing] or interrupt[ing] the operation of" the facility. The act is a state jail felony, punishable by up to two years in jail and a $10,000 fine. This provision could target peaceful protests that, e.g., hinder access to pipelines or pipeline construction sites. A second offense, "intent to impair or interrupt critical infrastructure," is defined as entering or remaining on facility property "with the intent to impair or interrupt the operation of the facility." The act is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by a year in jail and a $4,000 fine. This provision could capture peaceful protests that take place near a pipeline or other infrastructure facility, regardless of whether they actually impair or interrupt the facility's operations. The law also creates two new felony offenses for "damage" and "intent to damage" critical infrastructure. Under the law, an association that is found guilty of any of the offenses around critical infrastructure is subject to a $500,000 fine. The law also creates new civil and vicarious liability for individuals and organizations related to the criminal offenses: A defendant who engages in conduct covered by any of the criminal offenses is civilly liable to the property owner, as is an organization that "knowingly compensates" a person for engaging in the conduct. The property owner may sue for and claim actual damages, court costs, and exemplary damages.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 6 Mar 2019; Approved by House 7 May 2019; Approved by Senate 20 May 2019; Signed by Governor Abbott 14 June 2019

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

HB 331: New penalties for protesters who wear masks or block traffic

Creates a serious misdemeanor offense that can cover peaceful demonstrators who wear a mask. Under the law, it is a Class A misdemeanor to wear a mask or other disguise in public with intent to conceal one’s identity from government officials, while either committing any offense or congregating with other people known to be committing, or attempting to commit, any offense. As such, peaceful demonstrators who choose wear a mask to avoid government surveillance or retaliation for their political views, could face arrest and criminal charges. The law does not require that a masked demonstrator themselves commit or intend to commit any unlawful act. Wearing a mask while part of a demonstration where other participants commit or attempt to commit minor violations of state or local law, such as blocking a sidewalk or violating noise ordinances, could be covered. A Class A misdemeanor in Utah is punishable by up to one year in jail. The law also adds the offense of “aggravated disorderly conduct on a street or highway” as a predicate offense for Utah’s racketeering statute. As a result, the law creates potential criminal and civil racketeering liability for organizers and protesters involved in demonstrations on highways or major roads. As introduced, the law also created new felony offenses that could cover peaceful protesters who block traffic; these provisions were removed by amendment before the law was enacted.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 22 Jan 2026; Approved by House 24 February 2026; Approved by Senate 5 March 2026; Signed by Governor Cox 24 March 2026

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

SB 173: Criminal penalties for protests that disturb legislative or other government meetings

Creates new potential penalties for individuals protesting convenings of the legislature or other meetings of government officials. The law expands "disorderly conduct" to include a person who recklessly causes public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm by making "unreasonable noises" at an official meeting or in a private place that can be heard at an official meeting. "Disorderly conduct" also includes obstructing pedestrian traffic at an official meeting or refusing to leave an official meeting when asked by law enforcement. The law also increases the penalty for disorderly conduct, such that it is punishable by a $750 fine on the first offense (an infraction), up to 3 months in jail if a person was warned to cease prohibited conduct (Class C misdemeanor), up to 6 months for a second offense (Class B misdemeanor), and up to 1 year for a third offense (Class A misdemeanor). Accordingly, the law could, for example, be used to penalize silent protesters who refuse to leave a legislative committee meeting. An earlier version of the bill explicitly made it unlawful to commit even a "single, loud outburst, absent other disruptive conduct, that does not exceed five seconds in length." (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 24 Feb 2020; Approved by Senate 5 March 2020; Approved by House 12 March 2020; Signed by Governor 30 March 2020

HB 370: New Penalties for Protests Near Pipelines, Roadways, and other Infrastructure

**Note: This bill was amended prior to its passage, and provisions that would have covered peaceful protest activity were significantly narrowed.** As introduced, the bill would have created new potential criminal liability for protesters in many locations by criminalizing acts that "inhibit" or "impede" critical infrastructure facilities. The bill's original text had a sweeping definition of "critical infrastructure facility" that included highways, bridges, transportation systems, food distribution systems, law enforcement response systems, financial systems, and energy infrastructure including pipelines--whether under construction or operational. The bill created a new felony offense for "inhibiting," or "impeding" the facility, its equipment, or operation, such that protesters who intentionally inhibited or impeded the operation of a roadway or construction of a pipeline could have faced life in prison. Amendments to the bill substantially narrowed the offense, however. The enacted law criminalizes "substantially... inhibiting or impeding" the operation of critical infrastructure only if doing so "causes widespread injury or damage to persons or property." Amendments also narrowed the definition of "critical infrastructure facility," including by removing highways, bridges, transportation systems, food distribution systems, law enforcement response systems, and financial systems from the definition.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted with improvements

Introduced 3 Feb 2023; Approved by House 14 February 2023; Approved by Senate 28 February 2023; Signed by Governor Cox 14 March 2023

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Traffic Interference

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.”  

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 16 Jan 2025.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

HB 5091: Heightened penalties for protesters near pipelines and other infrastructure

Increases the penalties and broaden offenses that could cover nonviolent protesters near pipelines and other infrastructure. The law amends West Virginia’s 2020 critical infrastructure law to remove the limitation that the law’s offenses could only occur on critical infrastructure property “if completely enclosed by a fence or other physical barrier that is obviously designed to exclude intruders, or if clearly marked with a sign or signs that.. indicate that entry is forbidden.” As a result, many more infrastructure sites are covered by the 2020 law’s trespass and tampering offenses, which carry significant penalties. The law also makes convictions for second and subsequent offenses of either the trespassing or tampering offenses a felony punishable by at least 2 and up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $10,000-$15,000. The law increases the fine for a person who “vandalizes, defaces, or tampers with” equipment in a critical infrastructure facility that causes damage of more than $2,500, from $1,000-$5,000 to $3,000-$10,000. (As introduced, the bill made second convictions punishable by a minimum of 5 years and a fine of $100,000-$250,000, and increased the fine for tampering or vandalizing from $1,000-$5,000 to $25,000-$100,000.)

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 25 Jan 2024; Approved by House 6 February 2024; Approved by Senate 4 March 2024; Signed by Governor Justice 26 March 2024

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass

HB 4615: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines

Heightens potential penalties for protests near oil and gas pipelines and other infrastructure. Under the law, knowingly trespassing on property containing a critical infrastructure facility is punishable by a year in jail and a $500 fine. Criminal trespass on critical infrastructure property with intent to "vandalize, deface, tamper with equipment, or impede or inhibit operations" of the facility is a felony punishable by up to three years in prison and a $1,000 fine. Actually vandalizing, defacing, or tampering with the facility--regardless of actual damage--is a felony punishable by 5 years in prison and a $2,000 fine. An individual convicted of any of the offenses, and any entity that "compensates, provides consideration to or remunerates" a person for committing the offenses, is also civilly liable for any damage sustained. An organization or person found to have "conspired" to commit any of the offenses--regardless of whether they were committed--is subject to a criminal fine. The law newly defines "critical infrastructure facility" under West Virginia law to include a range of oil, gas, electric, water, telecommunications, and railroad facilities that are fenced off or posted with signs indicating that entry is prohibited.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 30 Jan 2020; Approved by House 13 February 2020; Approved by Senate 7 March 2020; Signed by Governor Justice 25 March 2020

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

HB 4618: Eliminating police liability for deaths while dispersing riots and unlawful assemblies

Reaffirms West Virginia's problematic law on rioting, and adds the West Virginia Capitol Police to those authorities who cannot be held liable for the deaths and wounding of individuals in the course of dispersing riots and unlawful assemblies. Under prior West Virginia law, the State Police, sheriffs, and mayors had authority to use means such as curfews and warrantless searches to disperse riots and unlawful assemblies; the law reaffirms and extends this authority to the Capitol Police. According to the law, if a bystander is asked to assist in the dispersal and fails to do so, he or she "shall be deemed a rioter." The law also adds Capitol Police to existing provisions eliminating liability if anyone present, "as spectator or otherwise, be killed or wounded," while the authorities used "any means" to disperse riots or unlawful assemblies or arrest those involved. The law was passed during a statewide strike by West Virginia teachers, thousands of whom protested in February 2018 at the State Capitol. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 13 Feb 2018; Approved by House 22 February 2018; Approved by Senate 8 March 2018; Signed by Governor Justice 10 March 2018

Issue(s): Police Response, Riot

AB 426: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines

Creates new potential penalties for protests near oil and gas pipelines and other property of "energy providers." The law expands existing provisions related to trespass and property damage to broadly include the property of all companies in the oil and gas industry. Under the law, trespass onto the property of any "company that operates a gas, oil, petroleum, refined petroleum product, renewable fuel, water, or chemical generation, storage, transportation, or delivery system" is a Class H felony, punishable by six years in prison and a fine of $10,000. Accordingly, protests in a range of locations may be covered, whether on land containing a pipeline or the corporate headquarters of an oil company. Any damage to property of such a company, with the intent to "cause substantial interruption or impairment of any service or good" provided by the company, is likewise a Class H felony under the law.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted

Introduced 12 Sep 2019; Approved by Assembly 11 October 2019; Approved by Senate 5 November 2019; Signed by Governor Evers on 21 November 2019

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass

AB 88 / SB 94: 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.

(See full text of bill here)

Status: pending

Introduced 28 Feb 2025.

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