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. 28, 2025 (North Carolina, North Dakota, West Virginia), Apr. 10, 2025 (US Federal), Apr. 3, 2025 (Missouri)
11 entries matching in provided filters in 8 states and 1 federal. Clear all filters
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
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
New Jersey
A 4652 / S 3507: New penalties for protest organizers and supporters, “disruptive” protesters, and protesters who wear masks
Would create serious new penalties that could cover protest organizers and others who “promote” protests. The bill creates a new offense of “inciting a public brawl,” broadly defined to cover someone who “acts with purpose to organize or promote” a group of four or more people to engage in “disorderly conduct.” But under New Jersey law, “disorderly conduct” is defined to include “tumultuous conduct” that might “create a risk” of “public inconvenience”—language that can cover peaceful protest activity and is often used to arrest and charge demonstrators. As such, the “inciting a public brawl” offense, which incorporates “disorderly conduct,” could cover a range of activity related to facilitating a peaceful demonstration, particularly as the bill does not define “organizing” or “promoting.” The offense is a serious misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and $1,000. If the “organizers” or “promoter” acts with purpose “to disrupt or cause a disturbance at a public gathering or event” or “knowing that such a disruption or disturbance is likely to occur,” it is a felony, punishable by up to 18 months in prison and $10,000. The bill does not require that such “disturbance” be more than fleeting in duration or that it otherwise meaningfully interfere with the public event. As such, the felony offense would seemingly cover someone who shares a social media post about a large street protest, knowing that it may even briefly “disturb” a public event taking place nearby. Under the bill, participants in such a protest would face heightened penalties as well, as the bill increases penalties for someone who engages in “disorderly conduct” “with purpose to disrupt or cause a disturbance at a public gathering or event.” Finally, the bill increases penalties for someone who engages in “disorderly conduct” while concealing or attempting to conceal their identity “with purpose to hinder prosecution or avoid apprehension.” In both cases “disorderly conduct” would be a serious rather than petty offense, punishable by up to six months in jail and $1,000.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 25 Jun 2024; Approved by Assembly 27 February 2025; Approved by Senate 24 March 2025
Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Face Covering
return to map
New Jersey
S 834 / A 3489: 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 text was introduced as S3261 during the 2020-2021 session, and as S1783/A4577 during the 2022-2023 session.
(
See full text of bill here)
Status: pending
Introduced 9 Jan 2024.
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 cause of action against 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
West Virginia
SB 713: Enabling civil lawsuits against protesters for "picketing"
Would create a broad civil cause of action that could be used against peaceful protesters near streets, places of employment, or homes. The bill would prohibit someone from engaging in “mass picketing” that “hinder[s] or prevent[s]… the pursuit of any lawful work or employment,” or that “obstruct[s] or interfer[es] with entrance to or egress from any place of employment,” or that “obstruct[s] or interfer[es] with free and uninterrupted use of public roads, streets, highways, railways, airports, or other ways of travel,” as well as “picketing a private residence by any means or methods whatsoever.” Under the bill, anyone who is “the subject of” such protests could bring a cause of action against the protesters, regardless of whether they suffered economic or other harm. The bill would require a court to enjoin the protest and award court costs and reasonable attorneys fees to a prevailing plaintiff in such an action. As such, a company could sue to stop a sidewalk protest near a retail outlet, and the protesters could have to pay for the lawsuit in addition to ending their demonstration. Further, the bill provides that someone who continues to engage in prohibited picketing in violation of an injunction must pay a civil fine of $1,000 for every day of the violation. Any organization that “continues to sponsor or assist” prohibited picketing in violation of an injunction is subject to a civil fine of $10,000 for every day of violation. While the bill provides that it “does not apply to picketing that is authorized under the United States Constitution or the Constitution of West Virginia,” 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 6 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, 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
Wisconsin
AB 88: 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
