The US Protest Law Tracker follows state and federal legislation introduced since January 2017 that restricts the right to peaceful assembly.
US
Federal
HR
5721:
Federal penalties for protests near judges and court officers
Would
create a new federal offense that could cover protesters who demonstrate near
federal judges, jurors, or court staff, regardless of their intent. Under
current law, it is illegal to demonstrate or use a sound-amplification device
“in or near a building or residence used by” a federal judge, juror, witness or
court officer—only if one does so with the intention of influencing them or
otherwise “interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of
justice.” The bill would remove this intent requirement such that the offense
could cover protesters who demonstrate in or near any building or residence
that they know is occupied by a judge, juror, witness or court officer,
regardless of their purpose for doing so. So, for instance, someone could face
federal penalties if they knowingly protest outside a restaurant where a judge
is eating, even if they are demonstrating about an issue unrelated to a court
case.
Status:
pending
Introduced 8 Oct 2025.
US
Federal
HR
4846:
Creating an affirmative defense for drivers who hit protesters
According
to the bill's title, it would create an affirmative defense in criminal and
civil cases related to "motor vehicle incidents" involving someone
who is convicted of "riot." In social media posts, the bill's sponsor
said it would "allow Americans to run over" people protesting in the
street.
Status:
pending
Introduced
1 Aug 2025.
Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Riot
US
Federal
S
2376 / HR 4620:
Racketeering penalties for those connected to "riot" offenses
Would
add rioting-related offenses to the list of predicate offenses under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Under the bill,
entitled the "Stop Financial Underwriting of Nefarious Demonstrations and
Extremist Riots" (Stop FUNDERS) Act, an organization or individual found
to have "conspired" with individuals to engage in or encourage a
protest that is deemed a "riot" could be prosecuted under RICO.
Sponsors of the bill cited entities that
fund or coordinate protests as potential targets for the legislation. A
violation of RICO can lead to up to 20 years in prison and seizure of assets.
Third parties can also bring civil suits if injured by a RICO violation and
potentially receive treble damages.
Status:
pending
Introduced
22 Jul 2025.
Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Riot
US
Federal
HR
4232:
Stripping nonprofit status and federal funding of organizations connected to
obstruction or "riot" offenses
Would
revoke the tax-exempt status and prohibit federal funding of an organization if
an officer of the organization or a member of its board of directors is
convicted of an offense under Sections 111 or 2101 of U.S. Code Title 18.
Section 111 makes it a crime to assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or
interfere with certain federal officers and employees. The federal government
has used Section 111 to charge protesters who have, for example, blocked the
path of federal law enforcement. Section 2101 includes a number of rioting
offenses, including inciting, participating in, or encouraging a
"riot" or aiding or abetting any person inciting or participating in
a "riot;" the underlying federal definition of "riot" is
broad, moreover, and requires only a “public disturbance” where one individual
in a group commits violence. Under the proposed law, if an officer or board
member is convicted of violating Section 111 or 2101, even if they were acting
independently of their work with a nonprofit, the organization could lose its
tax-exempt status and federal funding.
Status:
pending
Introduced
27 Jun 2025.
Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Police Response, Riot, Limit on Public Benefits
US
Federal
HR
4053:
Barring small business aid to individuals convicted of "riot"
offenses
Would
bar individuals convicted of “riot” offenses from receiving small business
assistance from the federal government. The bill provides that a person
convicted of a felony for actions during or “in connection with” a riot is
prohibited from participating in any program run by the Small Business
Administration, if the riot resulted in the destruction of a small business.
The definition of “riot” under federal law is broad, requiring only a “public
disturbance” where one individual in a group commits violence. An individual
can be convicted of participating or inciting a “riot” based on conduct that
was neither violent nor destructive. Under the bill, individuals convicted of
such offenses would become ineligible for support such as disaster relief loans
and other small business assistance. The same bill was introduced as HR 6653 in
2022.
Status:
pending
Introduced
17 Jun 2025.
Issue(s): Riot, Limit on Public Benefits
US
Federal
HR
4015 / S 2115:
Federal penalties for protesters who block traffic
Would
create federal penalties for protesters who block public roads and highways.
Under the bill, it would be a federal crime to “in any way or degree, purposely
obstruct, delay, or affect commerce or the movement of any article or commodity
in commerce by blocking a public road or highway.” The offense would also cover
individuals who merely “attempt” or “conspire” to block a public road or
highway. The offense would be punishable by an unspecified fine and up to 5
years in federal prison. The same bill was introduced as S 3492 / HR 6926 in
the 2023 session.
Status:
pending
Introduced
13 Jun 2025.
Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Traffic Interference
US
Federal
S
2001:
Providing for deportation of non-citizens who commit protest-related offenses
Would
cancel the visa of any individual convicted of protest-related crimes and
provide for the individual’s deportation within 60 days. Under the bill,
individuals convicted of any “crime (i) related to [their] conduct at and
during the course of a protest; (ii) involving the defacement, vandalism, or
destruction of Federal property; or (iii) involving the intentional obstruction
of any highway, road, bridge, or tunnel” would be deportable. The bill requires
that such individuals’ visas be “immediately” cancelled and the individuals
removed from the US within 60 days. If enacted, a non-citizen convicted of even
a nonviolent misdemeanor “related to” a protest, such as trespass or disorderly
conduct, could face deportation. The bill’s sponsor cited protests around
immigration raids in Los Angeles as the impetus for his bill.
Status:
pending
Introduced
10 Jun 2025.
Issue(s): Traffic Interference
US
Federal
S
2000:
Heightened penalties for "riot" offenses
Would
amend the federal anti-rioting law to raise the maximum penalty to ten years in
prison, instead of five, for participating in or inciting a “riot,” or aiding
or abetting someone to do so. The federal definition of “riot” is broad,
requiring only a “public disturbance” where one individual in a group commits
violence. Under the bill, someone who committed or abetted an “act of
violence” during the commission of a “riot” offense would face a minimum
one-year sentence, while an individual who assaulted a law enforcement officer
would face a sentence of at least one year and up to life in prison. Federal
law defines “act of violence” broadly to include using force against
property—or just attempting or threatening to use such force. As such, if
enacted, the bill could result in steep criminal penalties for protesters who
do not actually engage in violence or destructive conduct. The bill’s
sponsor cited protests around
immigration raids in Los Angeles as the impetus for his bill.
Status:
pending
Introduced
10 Jun 2025.
Issue(s): Riot
US
Federal
HR
3859:
Providing for deportation of non-citizens who commit protest-related offenses
Would
make deportable noncitizens who commit or “admit to” certain offenses that can
occur during protests. Under the bill, a noncitizen could be deported if she is
convicted of or “admits to having committed” participation in a “riot” under
federal, state, or local law, or an act that “involves” using force against a
law enforcement officer, or an act that “involves” vandalism of public
property. The bill would apply to undocumented immigrants as well as lawful
residents. Such individuals would be ineligible for asylum or other
discretionary relief; they would be subject to detention throughout removal
proceedings and, if deported, would be permanently barred from reentering the
U.S. The bill would seemingly grant discretion to executive branch authorities,
rather than a court, to determine that someone “admitted” to an offense or
other act specified under the bill. Further, “riot” is broadly defined under
federal and many state laws, such that it can cover individuals who are not
engaged in violence. For instance, if enacted, authorities could seek to deport
a noncitizen who posted on social media that she attended a protest that local
police deemed a “riot” based on others' conduct. The bill’s sponsor cited protests in Los
Angeles against federal immigration raids and arrests as motivation for the
bill.
Status:
pending
Introduced
10 Jun 2025.
Issue(s): Riot
US
Federal
HR
2272:
Blocking financial aid to students who commit a "riot"-related
offense
Would
bar federal financial assistance and loan forgiveness for any student convicted
of a crime in connection with a “riot.” The bar would apply to students
convicted of “rioting” or “a) inciting a riot; b) organizing, promoting,
encouraging, participating in, or carrying on a riot; c) committing any act of
violence in furtherance of a riot; or d) aiding or abetting any person in
inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of
violence in furtherance of a riot.” Many states define “riot” broadly
enough to cover peaceful protest activity; many also have broad laws
criminalizing “incitement to riot” that cover protected expression. The bill
would bar financial aid and loan forgiveness for students convicted under such
provisions. As written, the bill would also bar financial aid and loan
forgiveness to students convicted of any offense related to “organizing,
promoting, encouraging” a riot, or “aiding and abetting” incitement or
participation in a riot, which could cover an even wider range of expressive
conduct, from sharing a social media post to cheering on demonstrators in a
protest that was deemed a “riot.”
Status:
pending
Introduced
21 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Riot, Limit on Public Benefits
US
Federal
HR
2273:
Providing for visa revocation and deportation of noncitizens who commit a
"riot"-related offense
Would
require the Secretary of State to revoke the visa of and make deportable a
noncitizen student, scholar, teacher, or specialist convicted of a crime in
connection with a “riot.” Under the bill, individuals in the US on an F-1, J-1,
or M-1 visa would have their visas revoked and would be deportable if they were
convicted of “rioting” or “a) inciting a riot; b) organizing, promoting,
encouraging, participating in, or carrying on a riot; c) committing any act of
violence in furtherance of a riot; or d) aiding or abetting any person in
inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of
violence in furtherance of a riot.” Many states define “riot” broadly
enough to cover peaceful protest activity; many also have broad laws
criminalizing “incitement to riot” that cover protected expression. The bill
would provide for the deportation of foreign students, scholars, and others
convicted under such provisions. As written, the bill would also provide for
their deportation if convicted of any offense related to “organizing,
promoting, encouraging” a riot, or “aiding and abetting” incitement or
participation in a riot, which could cover an even wider range of expressive
conduct, from sharing a social media post to cheering on demonstrators in a
protest that was deemed a “riot.”
Status:
pending
Introduced
21 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Riot
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.
Status:
pending
Introduced
13 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure
US
Federal
S
982:
Potential penalties for universities based on protest policies
Would
make federal accreditation of colleges and universities—and thus their access
to federal funds—contingent on the institution’s policies on responding to
protests. Under the “No Tax Dollars for College Encampments Act of 2024,”
universities would have to regularly disclose how they respond to campus
“incidents of civil disturbance,” defined to include “a demonstration, riot, or
strike,” and their accreditation would be linked to such policies and
practices. The bill sponsor cited pro-Palestine
campus protests as motivation for the bill; he introduced the same bill in
2024.
Status:
pending
Introduced
12 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Riot
US
Federal
HR
2065:
Harsh penalties for protesters who conceal their identity
Would
make it a federal crime, subject to a lengthy prison sentence, to wear a mask
or other disguise while protesting in an "intimidating" or
“oppressive” way. Under the “Unmasking Hamas Act,” anyone "in disguise,
including while wearing a mask" who "injures, oppresses, threatens,
or intimidates any person" exercising their constitutional rights could be
sentenced to up to 15 years in prison as well as fined. The bill does not
define “oppress,” nor does the bill specify what is meant by “disguise,” other
than that it includes a “mask.” The bill’s substantive provisions are identical
to the “Unmasking Antifa Act,” which lawmakers have introduced in several
previous sessions. Sponsors of the bill made clear that it is a
response to pro-Palestine protesters, some of whom have worn masks to
avoid retaliation.
Status:
pending
Introduced
11 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Face Covering
US
Federal
S
937:
Barring student protesters from federal loans and loan forgiveness
Would
exclude student protesters from federal financial aid and loan forgiveness if
they commit any crime at a campus protest. The bill would cover
someone convicted of “any offense” under “any Federal or State law” that is
“related to the individual’s conduct at and during the course of a protest” at
a college or university. As such, a student convicted of even a nonviolent,
state law misdemeanor at a campus protest, such as failing to disperse, would
be deemed ineligible for federal student loans; they would also be ineligible
for having existing federal loans forgiven, cancelled, waived or modified. The
sponsor of the bill said it was a response to pro-Palestine
protests at colleges and universities.
Status:
pending
Introduced
11 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Limit on Public Benefits
US
Federal
HR
1057:
Penalties for protesters on interstate highways
Would
create steep new penalties for protesters deemed to be “deliberately delaying
traffic,” “standing or approaching a motor vehicle,” or “endangering the safe
movement of a motor vehicle” on an interstate highway “with the intent to
obstruct the free, convenient, and normal use of the interstate highway.” The
new federal offense would be punishable by up to $10,000 and 15 years in
prison—a far harsher penalty than is the case under many states' laws, which
generally already criminalize walking or standing on the highway. The bill
provides an exception for “any lawful activity” authorized by federal, state,
or local law. However, it could still seemingly cover far more than “blocking”
the interstate, including a peaceful protest on the shoulder of an interstate
or a convoy-style, driving protest that slowed traffic. The sponsor of the bill
made clear that it was in response to protesters.
The same bill was introduced as HR 7349 in 2024.
Status:
pending
Introduced
6 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): Traffic Interference
US
Federal
S
4756 / HR 9117:
Revoking visas and deporting foreign protesters
Would
immediately cancel the visa of any alien convicted of a crime related to
“conduct at and during the course of a protest that occurs at an institution of
higher education” or at a facility operated by a religious institution;
involving the defacement, vandalism, or destruction of a federal memorial or
monument; or involving the intentional obstruction of any highway, road,
bridge, or tunnel. The bill provides that any alien who is convicted of such a
crime shall be removed from the U.S. within 60 days of their conviction.
Status:
defeated / expired
Introduced
24 Jul 2024.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Traffic Interference
US
Federal
HR
9102:
Barring Student Protesters from Federal Student Loans
Would
ban “a student who is convicted of a hate crime under State of Federal law for
conduct that occurred during a protest at an institution of higher education
that disrupts the normal campus functions” from receiving a federal student
loan or participating in a federal student loan forgiveness program. The bill
defines "hate crime" to include a federal hate crime under Section 18
U.SC. 249, but does not define other federal or state hate crimes that would
also be covered. As such, if a state enacted a hate crime law that included
nonviolent conduct, a conviction under that state law could trigger the ban on
federal student loan assistance under the bill.
Status:
defeated / expired
Introduced
23 Jul 2024.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Limit on Public Benefits
US
Federal
HR
8883:
Potential penalties for universities based on protest policies
Would
make federal accreditation of colleges and universities—and thus their access
to federal funds—contingent on the institution’s policies on responding to
protests. Under the “No Tax Dollars for College Encampments Act of 2024,”
universities would have to regularly disclose how they respond to campus
“incidents of civil disturbance,” defined to include “a demonstration, riot, or
strike,” and their accreditation would be linked to such policies and
practices. The bill sponsor cited pro-Palestine
encampments on university campuses and other campus demonstrations as
motivation for the bill.
Status:
defeated / expired
Introduced
28 Jun 2024.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Riot, Limit on Public Benefits
US
Federal
HR
8823:
Withholding federal funds from states that do not punish street protesters
Would
enable the federal government to withhold highway funding from states that
allow protests on highways and other public roads. The bill would direct the
Secretary of Transportation to withhold 10 percent of a state’s allocated
federal highway funds each year, unless the Secretary could certify that the
state had made “reasonable efforts” to prohibit individuals from “knowingly and
recklessly obstructing” transportation on Federal-aid highways, which make up
roughly one-quarter of all public roads in the U.S. Under the bill, the
Secretary would have sole and unbounded discretion to make such a
certification. The bill sponsor indicated that the bill is
“a direct response to the increasing trend of unlawful traffic-obstructing
protests.”
Status:
defeated / expired
Introduced
25 Jun 2024.
Issue(s): Traffic Interference, Limit on Public Benefits
US
Federal
HR
8468:
BARRING STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR CAMPUS PROTESTERS
Would
disqualify certain campus protesters from federal student loan forgiveness
programs. Under the bill, a student or faculty member who is expelled or fired
from a higher education institution for a protest-related reason is not
eligible for any loan forgiveness program under federal law. Covered reasons
for expulsion or firing comprise “creating a public disturbance,” “disorderly
conduct,” “trespassing,” “hate crime,” and violating provisions of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 related to discrimination. The bill’s sponsor cited pro-Palestine
demonstrations on college campuses as motivation for the legislation.
Status:
defeated / expired
Introduced
21 May 2024.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Trespass, Limit on Public Benefits
US
Federal
S
4295:
Barring federal funds for universities that don’t clear protest camps
Would
bar federal funding for colleges and universities that fail to remove prolonged
protest encampments. Under the “Encampments or Endowments Act,” if the
Secretary of Education determined that a university permitted a protest
encampment on campus for more than seven days, and camp participants had
“attempted to interfere with a core function of the institution of higher
education” or “obstructed the ingress or egress of students,” then the
university would be ineligible to receive federal financial assistance for five
years. The barred assistance would include institutional as well as student aid
such as Pell grants and federal loans. Disqualified schools would have to
provide grant-based aid to students to make up for the federal aid they would
have otherwise received, and if they failed to do so, they would have to pay a
tax equal to 50 percent of their endowment’s assets. The sponsor cited pro-Palestine
protests on college campuses as the motivation for the bill.
Status:
defeated / expired
Introduced
9 May 2024.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Camping, Limit on Public Benefits
US
Federal
S
4302:
Barring federal financial aid for students convicted of protest-related
offenses
Would
prohibit federal financial aid for students who are convicted of
protest-related offenses while participating in a campus protest. The
prohibition on federal financial aid under the “No Higher education Assistance
for Mobs of Antisemitic and terrorist Sympathizing Students (No HAMAS)
Act" would apply to students who are convicted under federal or state law
of trespassing, unlawful assembly, rioting, or damaging property while
protesting at a college or university. Such students would be ineligible for
any federal grant, loan, or work study assistance. The sponsor and cosponsors
of the bill have pointed
to pro-Palestine
protests on college and university campuses as their motivation, however the
legislation could cover students who are convicted of nonviolent offenses such
as trespass while demonstrating for any cause while on campus.
Status:
defeated / expired
Introduced
9 May 2024.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Riot, Trespass, Limit on Public Benefits
US
Federal
HR
8322:
Revoking visas of foreign student protesters
Would
revoke the F, J, or M student visas of students who are “arrested for rioting
or unlawful protest,” or “arrested while establishing, participating in, or
promoting an encampment” at an institute of higher education. The bill’s
sponsor cited foreign students
who have participated in pro-Palestine protests on college campuses.
Status:
defeated / expired
Introduced
8 May 2024.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Riot, Camping
US
Federal
HR
8321:
Mandatory community service in Gaza for campus protesters
Would
require anyone convicted of “unlawful activity” on a college or university
campus “after October 7, 2023,” to be “assigned” to the Gaza Strip “for the
purpose of providing community service” for a minimum of six months. While the
bill would apply to individuals convicted of “unlawful activity”, the sponsor
indicated that the bill is targeting individuals
involved in pro-Palestine demonstrations and encampments on college campuses.
Status:
defeated / expired
Introduced
8 May 2024.
Issue(s): Campus Protests
US
Federal
HR
8248:
Harsh penalties for protesters who conceal their identity
Would
reintroduce the “Unmasking Antifa Act”--first introduced in 2018--which would
make it a federal crime, subject to a lengthy prison sentence, to wear a mask
or other disguise while protesting in a "threatening" or
"intimidating" way. Under the act, anyone "in disguise,
including while wearing a mask" who "injures, oppresses, threatens,
or intimidates any person" excercising their constitutional rights could
be sentenced to up to 15 years in prison as well as fined. The bill explicitly
exempts police and other law enforcement agents, stating that "nothing in
this section shall be construed so as to deter any law enforcement officer from
lawfully carrying out the duties of his office." While the bill title
refers to unmasking "Antifa," the sponsor of the reintroduced bill
has focused on pro-Palestine
protesters, some of whom have worn masks to protect themselves from doxxing and
other forms of retaliation.
Status:
defeated / expired
Introduced
6 May 2024.
Issue(s): Face Covering
US
Federal
S
4240 / HR 8242:
Barring student loan forgiveness for campus protesters
Would
bar federal student loan forgiveness for individuals convicted of
protest-related offenses on a college or university campus. The “No Bailouts
for Campus Criminals Act” would exclude an individual from the federal
government’s forgiveness, cancellation, or modification of a student loan if
they are convicted of “any offense” under federal or state law “related to” the
individual’s conduct at a protest occurring at an institution of higher
education. As such, if adopted, individuals convicted of even minor, nonviolent
state law offenses such as trespass or unlawful assembly would be ineligible
for loan forgiveness. Congressional sponsors of the bill cited pro-Palestine
protests on college campuses as impetus for the legislation.
Status:
defeated / expired
Introduced
2 May 2024.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Limit on Public Benefits
US
Federal
HR
8221:
Deportation of foreigners charged with crimes related to protests
Would
provide for the deportation of a foreign individual “charged” with “any crime”
related to their participation in “pro-terrorism or antisemitism rallies or
demonstrations.” Under the bill, a foreign individual merely charged—not
necessarily convicted—with an offense as minor as a misdemeanor could face
deportation if the offense was “related” to their participation in a protest
deemed “pro-terrorism or antisemiti[c]" in nature. The sponsor of the
bill, titled “Hamas Supporters Have No Home Here Act,” cited the involvement
of foreign students in campus protests against Israel’s military campaign in
Gaza.
Status:
defeated / expired
Introduced
1 May 2024.
Issue(s): Campus Protests
US
Federal
S
3887:
Heightened penalties for riot offenses
Would
significantly increase the penalties for federal “riot” and “incitement to
riot” offenses if they involve property damage or injury. The bill would create
a new, mandatory one-year prison sentence for anyone who commits “an act of
violence” or aids someone else in doing so, while participating in, organizing,
“inciting,” “promoting,” or “encouraging” a “riot.” The maximum penalty would
jump to 10, instead of 5, years in prison. Federal law defines “act of
violence” broadly to include using force against property—or just attempting or
threatening to use such force. Under the bill, someone who knocked over a trash
can, or merely threatened to do so, while cheering on an unruly protest, could
face 10 years in prison.
Status:
defeated / expired
Introduced
6 Mar 2024.
Issue(s): Riot
US
Federal
S
3492 / HR 6926:
Federal penalties for protesters who block traffic
Would
create federal penalties for protesters who block public roads and highways.
The “Safe and Open Streets Act” would make it a federal crime to “in any way or
degree, purposely obstruct, delay, or affect commerce or the movement of any
article or commodity in commerce by blocking a public road or highway.” The
offense would also cover individuals who merely “attempt” or “conspire” to
block a public road or highway. The offense would be punishable by an
unspecified fine and up to 5 years in federal prison.
Status:
defeated / expired
Introduced
13 Dec 2023.
Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Traffic Interference
US
Federal
S
192 / HR 7349:
Penalties for protesters on interstate highways
Would
create steep new penalties for protesters deemed to be “deliberately delaying
traffic,” “standing or approaching a motor vehicle,” or “endangering the safe
movement of a motor vehicle” on an interstate highway “with the intent to
obstruct the free, convenient, and normal use of the interstate highway.” The
new federal offense would be punishable by up to $10,000 and 15 years in
prison—a far harsher penalty than is the case under many states' laws, which
generally already criminalize walking or standing on the highway. The bill
provides an exception for “any lawful activity” authorized by federal, state,
or local law. However, it could still seemingly cover far more than “blocking”
the interstate, including a peaceful protest on the shoulder of an interstate
or a convoy-style, driving protest that slowed traffic. The same bill was
introduced as S 4825 in 2022.
Status:
defeated / expired
Introduced
31 Jan 2023.
Issue(s): Traffic Interference
US
Federal
S
4825:
Penalties for protesters on interstate highways
Would
prohibit “deliberately delaying traffic,” “standing or approaching a motor
vehicle,” or “endangering the safe movement of a motor vehicle” on an
interstate highway “with the intent to obstruct the free, convenient, and
normal use of the interstate highway.” The new federal offense would be
punishable by up to $10,000 and 15 years in prison—a far harsher penalty than
is the case under many states' laws, which generally already criminalize
walking or standing on the highway. The bill provides an exception for “any
lawful activity” authorized by federal, state, or local law. However it could
still seemingly cover far more than “blocking” the interstate, including a
peaceful protest on the shoulder of an interstate or a convoy-style, driving
protest that slowed down traffic.
Status:
defeated / expired
Introduced
13 Sep 2022.
Issue(s): Traffic Interference
US
Federal
HR
6653:
Barring small business aid to individuals convicted of "riot"
offenses
Would
bar individuals convicted of “riot” offenses from receiving small business
assistance from the federal government. The bill provides that a person
convicted of a felony for actions during or “in connection with” a riot is
prohibited from participating in any program run by the Small Business
Administration, if the riot resulted in the destruction of a small business.
The definition of “riot” under federal law is broad, requiring only a “public
disturbance” where one individual in a group commits violence. An individual
can be convicted of participating or inciting a “riot” based on conduct that
was neither violent nor destructive. Under the bill, individuals convicted of
such offenses would become ineligible for support such as disaster relief
loans, loans to avert hardship caused by COVID-19, and other small business
assistance.
Status:
defeated / expired
Introduced
9 Feb 2022.
Issue(s): Riot, Limit on Public Benefits
US
Federal
HR
289:
Stripping Pandemic Aid from Individuals Convicted of
"Protest-Related" Federal Crimes
Would
withdraw COVID-19 unemployment benefits from and impose new costs on anyone
convicted of a federal offense related to the individual's conduct at and
during a protest. Such a person would be ineligible for federal unemployment
aid under the CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9023) or any other Federal supplemental
unemployment compensation during the COVID-19 public health emergency. If
federal agents were involved in policing the protest at issue, the person who
was convicted of a related federal offense would also have to pay the cost of
the agents' policing activity, as determined by the court. Federal offenses
include both violations of federal law, and violations of state law that occur
on federal property. As such, the bill's withdrawal of benefits and imposition
of new costs could apply to, e.g., a peaceful protester convicted of
misdemeanor trespass for refusing to leave a demonstration on the steps of a
federal courthouse or a sit-in at a congressional office. This bill is nearly
identical to HB 8117 introduced in 2020. (See
full text of bill here)
Status:
defeated / expired
Introduced
13 Jan 2021.
Issue(s): Security Costs, Limit on Public Benefits
US
Federal
HR
8117:
Stripping Pandemic Aid from Individuals Convicted of
"Protest-Related" Federal Crimes
Would
withdraw COVID-19 unemployment benefits from and impose new costs on anyone
convicted of a federal offense related to the individual's conduct at and
during a protest. Such a person would be ineligible for federal unemployment
aid under the CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9023) or any other Federal supplemental
unemployment compensation during the COVID-19 public health emergency. If
federal agents were involved in policing the protest at issue, the person who
was convicted of a related federal offense would also have to pay the cost of
the agents' policing activity, as determined by the court. Federal offenses
include both violations of federal law, and violations of state law that occur
on federal property. As such, the bill's withdrawal of benefits and imposition
of new costs could apply to, e.g., a peaceful protester convicted of
misdemeanor trespass for refusing to leave a demonstration on the steps of a
federal courthouse or a sit-in at a congressional office. (See
full text of bill here)
Status:
defeated / expired
Introduced
28 Aug 2020.
Issue(s): Security Costs, Limit on Public Benefits
US
Federal
S
4424:
Withhold Federal Funding for Failure to Prosecute Destructive Protest
Activities
Would
empower the U.S. Attorney General to withhold up to 10% of select federal
funding from a state prosecutor's office, district attorney's office, or state
attorney general office, if the U.S. Attorney General determines that the
office has "abused the use of prosecutorial discretion by failing to
prosecute crimes stemming from riots or other violent or destructive protest
activities." Many riot statutes in the U.S. are broadly worded and can
encompass non-violent protest activity. In the past, peaceful protesters have
been prosecuted under these statutes. This bill could encourage an aggressive
interpretation of riot statutes as well as other laws that could be used
against peaceful demonstrators. On September 17, 2020, HR 8301 was introduced
in the House of Representatives, which has nearly identical language to S 4424.
(See
full text of bill here)
Status:
defeated / expired
Introduced
4 Aug 2020.
Issue(s): Riot
US
Federal
S
4266 / HR 7786:
Withhold Federal Funding for Failure to Either Prosecute or Properly Police a
Riot
Would
empower the U.S. Attorney General to withhold select federal funding if the
Attorney General determines that a state or local government has a "custom
or policy" of not prosecuting an individual engaged in unlawful activity
as part of a "riot" or if they decline to prosecute because the
"unlawful activity is related to or associated with expression of speech
protected by the First Amendment". The U.S. Attorney General can also
withhold select federal funding if a senior official, governing body, or policy
prohibits law enforcement from taking action that would prevent or mitigate
physical injury or property depredation related to a riot. The U.S. Attorney
General could withhold up to 25% of select federal funding or twice the
monetary value of property damaged or physical injury caused by the failure of
the state or local government to take "reasonable steps" to protect
against damage and injury. The bill also would create liability for "a
person with the lawful authority to direct a law enforcement agency" to
prohibit law enforcement from taking action that would prevent or materially
mitigate significant injury or property destruction related to a riot. The bill
defines "riot" using the broad federal definition. Such broadly worded
riot provisions have been used to prosecute peaceful protesters in the past.
This bill may pressure law enforcement to police assemblies aggressively to
ensure that their policing practices are not second-guessed by the federal government
resulting in loss of funding or because doing otherwise might open them up to
civil litigation. The bill could also lead to the aggressive interpretation of
riot statutes against peaceful protesters by prosecutors so as not to risk
losing federal funding.
Status:
defeated / expired
Introduced
22 Jul 2020.
Issue(s): Police Response, Riot, State Liability
US
Federal
HR
6054:
Harsh penalties for protesters who conceal their identity
The
"Unmask Antifa Act of 2018" would make it a federal crime, subject to
a lengthy prison sentence, to wear a mask or other disguise while protesting in
a "threatening" or "intimidating" way. Under the act,
anyone who "injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates any person"
while "in disguise, including while wearing a mask" could be
sentenced to up to 15 years in prison as well as fined. The bill explicitly
exempts police and other law enforcement agents, stating that "nothing in
this section shall be construed so as to deter any law enforcement officer from
lawfully carrying out the duties of his office." The name of the bill,
introduced by Republican Rep. Daniel Donovan and supported by Reps. Peter King,
Ted Budd, and Paul Gosar, refers to the leftist anti-Fascist movement, some
members of which have worn masks during protests. The bill expired with the
close of the 115th Congress on January 3, 2019. (See
full text of bill here)
Status:
defeated / expired
Introduced
8 Jun 2018.
Issue(s): Face Covering
https://www.icnl.org/usprotestlawtracker/
Comments
State Protest Laws are also reported on this website. Democrats will always resist passing laws that limit riots. All Bills introduced in 2025 are pending. All Bills introduced from 2018 through 2024 were defeated and have expired.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment