The US Protest Law Tracker follows state and federal legislation introduced since January 2017 that restricts the right to peaceful assembly. For more information, visit our Analysis of US Anti-Protest Bills page.
Latest updates: Jul. 24, 2025 (US Federal), Jul. 23, 2025 (US Federal), Jun. 30, 2025 (Illinois)
8 entries matching in provided filters in 6 states. Clear all filters
Arizona
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
return to map
Georgia
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
return to map
Georgia
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
return to map
Missouri
HB 495 / SB 52: Broadened “riot” offense and heightened penalties
**Note: This law was amended prior to its enactment, and all provisions related to "riot" and "traffic interference" were removed.** As introduced, the law would have made “rioting” a felony and significantly expand the scope of the offense such that it could cover peaceful demonstrators. The introduced version of the law removed a requirement in preexisting Missouri law than an individual use “force or violence” in order to be criminally liable for “riot”: As such, under the law as introduced, an individual engages in “rioting” if they merely assemble with six people and commit any unlawful act. A first offense would be a Class D felony (up to seven years in prison and $10,000) rather than a misdemeanor, and subsequent offenses would be a Class C felony (up to 10 years and $10,000). For instance, participants in a seven-person vigil that commits a “peace disturbance” by blocking a sidewalk—a misdemeanor crime—could face felony charges. If anyone is injured during the “riot” or property damage of more than $5,000 occurs, the offense would be a Class B felony (up to 15 years), while if a police officer or other safety official is injured, rioting would be a Class A felony (up to life in prison). As introduced, the law would also have created a new offense of “unlawful traffic interference,” defined as walking, sitting, standing or otherwise being present on a public street “in such a manner as to block passage by a vehicle,” with the intention of “impeding” traffic. As written, the offense did not require that traffic actually be impeded for the offense to occur, such that peaceful protesters who gather in the street could be covered even if they do not actually impede any vehicles. Traffic interference would have been an infraction for the first offense, but a Class A misdemeanor (punishable by up to one year in jail) for second offense and a Class E felony (four years in prison) for third and subsequent offenses. Lawmakers amended the law before passing it to remove all provisions related to "riot" and "traffic interference."
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: enacted with improvements
Introduced 8 Jan 2025; Approved by House 20 February 2025; Approved by Senate 10 March 2025; Signed by Governor Kehoe 26 March 2025
Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference
return to map
Missouri
SB 26: heightened penalties for blocking roads
**Note: This bill was amended prior to its passage by the legislature to remove entirely the provisions related to "unlawful traffic interference."** Would criminalize protests that block traffic as "unlawful traffic interference" and provide for harsh penalties. Like SB 9, introduced in the 2020 session, the bill would criminalize a person's intentional blocking of traffic on a public street or highway, whether with her body or an object, as a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and a $2,000 fine. If the offense is repeated, or takes place on an interstate highway, it is a Class E felony, punishable by up to four years in jail and a $10,000 fine. If the offense is committed while the person is part of an "unlawful assembly," it is a Class D felony, which is punishable by up to seven years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Missouri law currently defines an "unlawful assembly" as a gathering of at least six people in order to violate a law with force or violence. The bill would broaden this definition to include a gathering of two or more people to violate any law, with or without force or violence.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: enacted with improvements
Introduced 1 Dec 2020; Approved by Senate 25 February 2021; Approved by House 4 May 2021
Issue(s): Traffic Interference
return to map
North Carolina
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
return to map
Oregon
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
return to map
Utah
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
return to map
