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: Apr. 10, 2025 (US Federal), Apr. 3, 2025 (Missouri), Apr. 1, 2025 (Kentucky)
11 entries matching in provided filters in 6 states and 1 federal. Clear all filters
US Federal
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
return to map
Alabama
SB 247: New penalties for street protesters
Would create a new criminal offense that could cover protesters who demonstrate in the street or obstruct access to businesses and residences. The bill, which focuses on targeted residential picketing, also broadly prohibits protesters from “block[ing] any public road, the ingress or egress of any residence, or the ingress or egress of any place of employment while picketing or protesting.” The prohibition would seemingly cover a large street protest, regardless of whether it actually interfered with traffic, as well as a large protest in an urban area that even temporarily blocked the entrance to a shop or apartment building. A first offense would be a Class C misdemeanor (up to three months in jail), and subsequent offenses would be a Class B misdemeanor (up to six months in jail).
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 18 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Traffic Interference
return to map
Alaska
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
return to map
Illinois
HB 2357: New penalties for protests that block traffic
Would create a new felony offense for protests that block traffic on highways and other busy roadways for more than five minutes. Existing Illinois law already prohibits protests or other assemblies on roadways without a permit or other permission from law enforcement, and requires that such assemblies not obstruct pedestrian or car traffic “in an unreasonable manner;” violations are a Class A misdemeanor offense. Under the bill, blocking “an exceptionally busy public right-of-way” for more than five minutes in a way that prevents “or would prevent” passage of an emergency vehicle, is a Class 4 felony. As written, the felony offense applies regardless of whether an emergency vehicle was actually blocked, or whether the roadway was “exceptionally busy” at the time it was blocked. “Exceptionally busy public right-of-way” is defined as a public road that typically carries at least 24,000 cars daily. The bill would also newly preempt cities and counties from enforcing a more lenient rule related to protests and demonstrations on roadways. The same bill was introduced as HB 5819 during the 2023-2024 session.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 4 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): Traffic Interference
return to map
Minnesota
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
return to map
Minnesota
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
return to map
Minnesota
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
return to map
Minnesota
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
return to map
Tennessee
SB 672 / HB 729: Felony penalties for blocking traffic or pedestrians
Would significantly increase the penalty for “obstructing” streets, sidewalks, and other public passageways, such that demonstrators in a variety of public locations could face felony charges. Current Tennessee law prohibits intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly blocking or making passage “unreasonably inconvenient” on public streets, sidewalks, elevators, aisles, or “any other place” used for passage of people or vehicles. Under the bill, that offense would be a Class E felony, punishable by up to six years in prison, rather than a misdemeanor. As such, demonstrators in a protest that made it “unreasonably inconvenient” for someone to use a sidewalk or access a public building could be arrested and charged with a felony. If protesters blocked or impeded passage on a highway, it would be a Class D felony, punishable by up to 12 years in prison.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 31 Jan 2025.
Issue(s): Traffic Interference
return to map
West Virginia
HB 3135: New penalties for protesters who block streets and sidewalks
Would create new penalties for protesters who block streets, sidewalks, and other public passageways. Under the bill, someone who obstructs a highway, street, sidewalk or “other place used for the passage of persons, vehicles, or conveyances,” whether alone or with others, commits a misdemeanor, punishable by at least $500 and one month in jail. A second or subsequent offense would be a felony, punishable by at least $1,000 and at least three months and up to three years in prison. The bill defines “obstruct” to include conduct that makes passage “unreasonably inconvenient.” As such, protesters on a sidewalk who were deemed to have made it “unreasonably inconvenient” for pedestrians to pass could face jail terms. A substantially similar bill was introduced as HB 5446 in 2024.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 4 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Traffic Interference
return to map
West Virginia
HB 2757: Potential "terrorism" charges for nonviolent protesters
Would create several new, sweeping “terrorism” offenses that could cover nonviolent protesters. One new offense, “terrorist violent mass action,” is defined to include “violent protests” and “riots” that “appear intended” to coerce or intimidate groups, governments, or societies. The bill provides that participation in a “terrorist violent mass action” constitutes an “terrorist act,” and any entity that uses such actions “to advance its agenda” is a “terrorist group.” “Violent protest” is not defined in the bill or elsewhere in the law, nor does the bill require that a person individually commit any act of violence or property damage to be culpable of “terrorist violent mass action.” As such, someone who peacefully participates in a nonviolent but rowdy protest where a few individuals commit property damage could conceivably face “terrorism” charges. Likewise, a nonprofit group involved in organizing or supporting such a protest “to advance its agenda” could be deemed a “terrorist organization” under the bill. Individuals and organizations not directly involved in such a protest could also face felony “terrorism” charges for providing protesters with “material support”—broadly defined by the bill as “any property, tangible or intangible, or service.” The bill also creates a new felony “terrorism” offense for “actions… taken for political reasons to bar other persons from exercising their freedom of movement, via foot or any other conveyance.” As written, that could cover a large, peaceful march that even temporarily stops traffic. Meanwhile, the bill provides complete immunity for people who “injure perpetrators or supporters of perpetrators” while attempting to “escape” such “terrorism.” This provision would seem to eliminate consequences for acts of violence against protesters by people whose movement has been blocked by a protest, including drivers who hit protesters with their cars. The bill also creates new felony “threatening terrorism” offenses for a person or group that "for political reasons blockades property containing critical infrastructure,” or that “trespasses for political reasons onto property containing critical infrastructure.” As such, nonviolent protesters who block a road to a pipeline or enter onto pipeline property could face “threatening terrorism” charges, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. A nearly identical bill was proposed in 2024 (HB 4994) and 2023 (HB 2916).
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 21 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Driver Immunity, Infrastructure, Riot, Terrorism, Traffic Interference, Trespass
return to map
