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. 29, 2026 (Tennessee), Apr. 28, 2026 (New York, Oklahoma), Apr. 17, 2026 (Louisiana, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah)
17 entries matching in provided filters in 10 states and 1 federal. Clear all filters
US Federal
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
return to map
US Federal
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
return to map
US Federal
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
return to map
US Federal
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
return to map
US Federal
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
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
Arizona
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
return to map
Arizona
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
return to map
Illinois
HB 1480: New penalties for protests near critical infrastructure
Would create a new felony offense that could cover nonviolent protesters at pipeline and other infrastructure sites. Under the bill, someone who knowingly “vandalizes, defaces, tampers with” or damages part of a critical infrastructure facility commits a felony. If the “value of the property” (not the cost of the damage) is less than $500, the offense is a Class 4 felony, punishable by 1-3 years in prison and up to $20,000; if the property value is $500-$10,000, it is a Class 3 felony (2-5 years and $20,000); and if the property value exceeds $10,000, it is a Class 2 felony (3-7 years and $20,000). The bill newly defines "critical infrastructure facility" under Illinois law to include gas and oil pipelines and a range of pipeline-related facilities, as well as electric, water, telecommunications, railroad, and “health care” facilities, regardless of whether they are fenced off or clearly marked with signs. As such, a protester who chalked or spraypainted a pipeline without damaging its functionality could face felony charges and a lengthy prison sentence if convicted. The bill extends liability to anyone who “conspires with” a person to commit the offense. It also provides that critical infrastructure owners can sue for punitive and compensatory damages. The same bill was introduced as HB 4746 in the 2023-2024 session.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 21 Jan 2025.
Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure
return to map
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
Missouri
HB 2555: Registration and reporting requirements for protest organizers and donors, criminal penalties for protesters, and legal protections for drivers who hit protesters
Reporting requirements: The bill would require some protest organizers and nonprofits that support protests to register as lobbyists and report to the state, with criminal and civil penalties for failure to do so. Under the bill, individuals who receive “any thing of monetary value” as compensation for “or provided in association with” attending or organizing “protest activity” would have to register as a “general lobbyist.” Any person, nonprofit, or other organization that provides such compensation for “protest activity” would be required to register as a “general lobbyist principal.” Both the recipient and donor would be required to file reports to the state, to be made public, within one week of any protest activity. The reports would have to include detailed data including the amount of funding involved, the funding source and recipient, date and location of each protest activity, and the protest’s purpose. The state would be empowered to levy penalties of up to $1,000 per day for each day that a recipient or donor failed to file the requisite report or did so inaccurately. A recipient’s failure to file such a report more than once would also be a Class E felony under the bill. In addition to the likely chilling effect of potential penalties for failure to publicly report peaceful protest organizing, the administrative burden created by the reporting system would be significant for both protest organizers and donors. New criminal penalties for masked protesters and street protesters: The bill would create a new Class A misdemeanor for wearing any garment that masks or “obfuscates any part of a person’s face” during an unlawful assembly. A second violation would be a Class E felony. As written, a demonstrator wearing a winter scarf or a medical mask could face up to a year in jail for participating in a peaceful protest that was deemed unlawful for, e.g., blocking pedestrians in a public place. The bill would also create a broad new Class A misdemeanor of “false imprisonment” which could cover peaceful protesters. The offense is defined to include individuals who unlawfully “impede[] the movement of another unlawfully” by “participating as part of a group that blocks rights-of-way on sidewalks, roadways, or any other location in which another has a right to be.” As such, the offense could cover individuals protesting without a permit, for instance, who obstruct others’ movement on a street or sidewalk. Legal immunity for drivers who hit protesters: The bill would create civil and criminal immunity for a driver who kills or injures a protester in certain circumstances. Under the bill, a driver would not be criminally or civilly liable for killing or injuring someone who was participating in an “unlawful or riotous assemblage,” if the driver was “attempting to flee” the assemblage, “reasonable believe[d]” they were in danger, and exercised “due care.” If enacted, the bill could encourage vehicular violence against protesters and allow drivers to evade civil damages and criminal penalties for hitting demonstrators in a protest that had been deemed “unlawful."
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 7 Jan 2026.
Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Driver Immunity, Face Covering, Traffic Interference
return to map
New Jersey
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
return to map
New York
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
return to map
Ohio
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
return to map
Pennsylvania
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
return to map
Pennsylvania
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
return to map
Wisconsin
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
return to map
