State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #WestVirginia - Part 2

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.

Full bill text:
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=3135&year=2025&sessiontype=RS

Status: pending

Introduced 4 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

HB 2757: Potential "#terrorism" charges for #NonviolentProtesters

Would create several new, sweeping “terrorism” offenses that could cover nonviolent protesters. One new offense, “terrorist violent #MassAction,” 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 #PropertyDamage could conceivably face “terrorism” charges. Likewise, a #NonprofitGroup involved in organizing or supporting such a protest “to advance its agenda” could be deemed a “#TerroristOrganization” 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).

Full text of bill:
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=2757&year=2025&sessiontype=RS

Status: pending

Introduced 21 Feb 2025.

Issue(s): #ProtestSupporters or Funders, #DriverImmunity, Infrastructure, Riot, Terrorism, #TrafficInterference, Trespass

#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests

State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #Utah

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. "#DisorderlyConduct" also includes obstructing #PedestrianTraffic 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."

Full text of bill:
https://le.utah.gov/~2020/bills/static/SB0173.html

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.

Full text here:
https://le.utah.gov/~2023/bills/static/HB0370.html

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, #TrafficInterference

#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests

State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #Tennessee

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.

Full text of bill:
https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB2570&GA=113

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.

Full text of bill:
https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=SB0451&GA=112

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 #ProtestCamps 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.

Full text of bill:
https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HB8005&GA=111

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, #TrafficInterference #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.

Full text of bill:
https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB0264&GA=111

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): #ProtestSupporters 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.

Full text of bill:
https://legiscan.com/TN/text/SB0902/2017

Status: enacted

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

Issue(s): #TrafficInterference

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.

Full text of bill:
https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB0672

Status: pending

Introduced 31 Jan 2025.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #SlowMarch #PipelineProtests

State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #SouthDakota

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."

Full text of bill:
https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bill/12001

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): #ProtestSupporters 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 #KeystoneXL and other pipelines.

Full text of bill:
https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bills/43

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.

Full text of bill:
https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bill/10176

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): #CivilLiability, #ProtestSupporters 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.

Full text of bill:
https://mylrc.sdlegislature.gov/api/Documents/284178.pdf

Status: enacted

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

Issue(s): #TrafficInterference, #Trespass

#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests #SLAPPs #NoKXL #WaterDefenders

State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #Oregon

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.”

Full text of bill:
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2025R1/Measures/Overview/HB2534

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Jan 2025.

Issue(s): #Riot, #TrafficInterference

HB 2772: Criminalizing Certain Protests as #DomesticTerrorism

**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. “#CriticalInfrastructure” is broadly defined to include #pipelines and #roads.

Full text of bill:
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Measures/Overview/HB2772

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

#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests

State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #Oklahoma

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.

Read full text:
https://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=hb1674&Session=2100

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): #ProtestSupporters or Funders, #DriverImmunity, Riot, #TrafficInterference

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."

Full text of bill:
https://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=hb2095&Session=2200

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 #CriticalInfrastructure

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 #DakotaAccessPipeline protests in North Dakota.

Full text of bill:
https://legiscan.com/OK/text/HB1123/2017

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.

Status: enacted

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

Issue(s): Trespass

SB 743: Ban on protests that disturb #worshippers

Would make it a serious criminal offense to protest in a way that disturbs people engaged in religious observation. Under the bill, someone who “willfully disturbs, interrupts, or disquiets” a group of “people met for religious worship” commits a misdemeanor punishable by a year in jail and $500, or a felony punishable by two years in prison and $1,000 for subsequent offenses. As written, the bill would seemingly allow anyone who was the target of a protest—for instance, lawmakers at the statehouse—to make a protest illegal simply by starting to pray. The prohibition extends to any unauthorized “protest [or] demonstration” within one mile of the individuals engaged in religious worship. “Disturb” and “disquiet” are not defined by the bill, such that even a #SilentDemonstration that was visible to people engaged in religious worship as far as one mile away could be prohibited. The bill was introduced as a substitute to SB 743 on March 25, 2025.

Full text of bill:
https://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=SB743&Session=2500

Status: pending

Introduced 25 Mar 2025; Approved by Senate 27 March 2025

SB 481: Restrictions on #PublicEmployees' 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.

Full text of bill:
https://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=sb481&Session=2500

Status: pending

Introduced 25 Feb 2025.

#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests

State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #NewYork

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.

Full text of bill:
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S6746
Status: pending

Introduced 21 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): #FaceCovering, 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.

Full text of bill:
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S5911

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.

Full text of bill:
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S723

Status: pending

Introduced 8 Jan 2025.

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

S 534: New penalties for protesters who block #traffic

Would create a new criminal offense that could cover #UnpermittedProtests 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.

Full text of bill:
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S534

Status: pending

Introduced 8 Jan 2025.

Issue(s): #TrafficInterference

#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests #MaskedProtesters #AntiMaskLaws

State by State Pending and recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #NewJersey - part 1

S 3578: 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.

Full bill text:
https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bill-search/2024/S3578

Status: pending

Introduced 19 Sep 2024.

Issue(s): Face Covering

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.

Full text of bill:
https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bill-search/2024/A4652

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

S 3103: Heightened penalties for blocking traffic

Would increase penalties for impeding traffic on public roads. Under the bill, “recklessly obstruct[ing]” any public road would be a more serious misdemeanor than under current law, punishable by up to six months in jail and $1,000. The bill would additionally create a new felony offense for anyone who purposefully obstructs or “affects” the movement of any commerce on a public road. The new offense would be punishable by up to 18 months in prison and $10,000. As such, protesters who peacefully demonstrate in a public road and even temporarily “affect” commercial vehicles could face felony charges.

Full text of bill:
https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bill-search/2024/S3103

Status: pending

Introduced 15 Apr 2024.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

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.

Full text of bill:
https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bill-search/2024/S834

Status: pending

Introduced 9 Jan 2024.

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

S 652 / A 4610: 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 S84/A456 in the 2022-2023 session.

Full text of bill:
https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bill-search/2024/S652

Status: pending

Introduced 9 Jan 2024.

Issue(s): #Riot, #TrafficInterference

#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests #MaskedProtesters #AntiMaskLaws

State by State Pending and Recently Passed #AntiProtestLaws: #Louisiana

HB 737: #Vague ban on #ResidentialProtests

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 #PublicParks 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.

Full text of bill:
https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/BillInfo.aspx?s=24RS&b=HB737&sbi=y

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.

Full text of bill:
https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/BillInfo.aspx?s=24RS&b=HB383&sbi=y

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): #DriverImmunity, #TrafficInterference

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 #highway of commerce,” “#riot,” “inciting to riot,” "institutional #vandalism," and “aiding and abetting others to enter or remain on premises where forbidden.” As such, individuals in a protest that merely makes movement on a #highway “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 “#PublicDisturbance” 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 #CivilDisobedience 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 #HardLabor and a one million dollar fine.

Full text of bill:
https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/BillInfo.aspx?i=245811&sbi=y

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): #ProtestSupporters or Funders, Infrastructure, Riot, #Trespass

HB 127: Heightened penalties for #StreetProtesters 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.

Full text of bill:
https://legis.la.gov/legis/BillInfo.aspx?s=24RS&b=HB127&sbi=y

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."

Full text of bill:
https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/BillInfo.aspx?s=18RS&b=HB727&sbi=y

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

#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests #HeatherHeyer #UniteTheRight #DrivingDownProtestors

State by State Pending and Recently Passed #AntiProtestLaws: #Iowa

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.

Full text of bill:
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=89&ba=SF%20342

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

HF 952: Requiring state permission for protests in the capitol and on capitol grounds

Would require organizers to have a government sponsor in order to hold protests in or near the Iowa capitol. Under the bill, organizers cannot hold “events” in capitol buildings or on capitol grounds unless they have a “recommendation” either from a statewide elected official or by both a member of Iowa’s state senate and its house of representatives. The bill would also prohibit the same person from holding more than six “events” per year in or around the capitol. Neither the bill nor the relevant provisions of Iowa law define “events,” such that they could seemingly include public protests and demonstrations. As such, the bill would effectively give elected officials authority to allow or disallow protests near the capitol.

Full text of bill:
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=91&ba=HF%20952
Status: pending

Introduced 12 Mar 2025.

HF 25: Heightened penalties for #MaskedProtesters

Would increase the penalty for any offense if committed by someone wearing a mask or other device that concealed their identity for the purpose of facilitating the offense. The bill provides #exemptions for masks worn in a number of contexts, including holiday costumes, medical masks, and “#hood[s]” or other “disguise[s]” worn by members of “a society, order, or organization while engaged in any parade, ritual” or “ceremony.” As such, for instance, members of the #KluKluxKlan would seemingly be exempt from enhanced penalties for illegally blocking traffic while parading in the street wearing hoods. The bill does not exempt masks worn during public protests, nor does it limit the enhanced penalties to violent crimes. Accordingly, a peaceful protester who committed a nonviolent offense while wearing a mask could face steeper penalties. A masked demonstrator engaged in a vigil who failed to disperse after being ordered to do so by police, for instance, could face up to a year in jail, rather than 30 days.

Full text of bill:
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=91&ba=hf25

Status: pending

Introduced 14 Jan 2025.

Issue(s): #FaceCovering

#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #TrafficInterference #MaskBans #HoodsAreOK #HeatherHeyer #UniteTheRight #DrivingDownProtestors #LimitingProtests #RedTape

State by State Pending and Recently Passed #AntiProtestLaws: #Indiana

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 "#CriticalInfrastructure 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.

Full text of bill: https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2019/bills/senate/471

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): #ProtestSupporters or Funders, #Infrastructure

SB 286: New criminal penalties for masked protesters

Would create a new offense for attending a public assembly while wearing a mask, and elevate disorderly conduct and rioting to felony offenses if committed by someone wearing a mask. The bill creates exemptions for masks worn for holidays, theater, religious purposes, medical purposes if prescribed by a doctor, and athletic events, but not protests. Under the bill, someone who wears a mask “while present at a public assembly” would commit a Class C misdemeanor (punishable by up to 60 days in jail) for a first offense but a Class A misdemeanor (up to one year and $5,000) for second and subsequent offenses. As written, the offense could cover a demonstrator who chooses to wear a mask to avoid contagion, to avoid retaliation for their political speech, or for any other reason, and who did not otherwise act unlawfully or have any intent to break a law. The offense would also seemingly cover bystanders “present” at a protest while masked. The bill would convert disorderly conduct and rioting—both broadly defined by Indiana law and typically misdemeanor offenses—into Level 6 felonies (up to two and a half years in prison and $10,000) if committed by someone in a mask. “Disorderly conduct,” for instance, covers someone who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally “makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop.” As such, someone who chooses to wear a mask while participating in a peaceful but noisy protest could face felony charges.

Full text of bill:
https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2025/bills/senate/286/details

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Jan 2025.

Issue(s): Face Covering, Riot

#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests #TrafficInterference #MaskBans

State by State Pending and Recently Passed #AntiProtestLaws: #Illinois

HB 2357: New penalties for protests that #BlockTraffic

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.

Full text of bill: https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=2357&GAID=18&GA=104&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=160067&SessionID=114

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 #NonviolentProtesters 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.

Full bill text: https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=114&GA=104&DocTypeId=HB&DocNum=1480&GAID=18&LegID=157549&SpecSess=&Session=

Status: pending

Introduced 21 Jan 2025.

Issue(s): Civil Liability, #ProtestSupporters or Funders, #Infrastructure

#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #AntiProtestLaws #PipelineProtests #TrafficInterference

State by State Pending and Recently Passed #AntiProtestLaws: #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.

Full text of bill: https://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/52111

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.

Full text of bill:
https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20172018/170731

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): #TrafficInterference

#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #PipelineProtests #CriminalizingDissent #AntiProtestLaws #CampusProtests

State by State Pending and Recently Passed #AntiProtestLaws: #Florida

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 “#CriticalInfrastructure” 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 entrance 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.

Full text of bill: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1435/?Tab=BillHistory

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.

Full text of bill: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1435/?Tab=BillHistory

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: Provisions of HB1 related to the law's new definition of "riot" were preliminarily enjoined by a federal district judge on September 9, 2021, temporarily blocking enforcement of those provisions.**

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.

Full text of bill: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1435/?Tab=BillHistory

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, #PoliceResponse, Riot, #TrafficInterference, State Liability, #StandYourGround

#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #PipelineProtests #CriminalizingDissent #AntiProtestLaws