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

AB 426: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines

Creates new potential penalties for protests near oil and gas #pipelines and other property of "energy providers." The law expands existing provisions related to trespass and property damage to broadly include the property of all companies in the oil and gas industry. Under the law, trespass onto the property of any "company that operates a #gas, #oil, petroleum, refined #petroleum product, renewable fuel, water, or chemical generation, storage, transportation, or delivery system" is a Class H felony, punishable by six years in prison and a fine of $10,000. Accordingly, protests in a range of locations may be covered, whether on land containing a pipeline or the corporate headquarters of an oil company. Any damage to property of such a company, with the intent to "cause substantial interruption or impairment of any service or good" provided by the company, is likewise a Class H felony under the law.

Full text of bill:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2019/proposals/reg/asm/bill/ab426

Status: enacted

Introduced 12 Sep 2019; Approved by Assembly 11 October 2019; Approved by Senate 5 November 2019; Signed by Governor Evers on 21 November 2019

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass

AB 88: BROAD NEW DEFINITION OF "RIOT" and related felony offenses and civil liability

Would broadly define "riot" under Wisconsin law and create #vague new felony offenses as well as expansive civil liability that could cover #PeacefulProtest activity. The bill defines a “riot” as a “public disturbance” involving an act of violence or the threat of violence by someone in a gathering of 3 or more people. No actual damage or injury need take place for a gathering to become a “riot,” only a “clear and present danger” of damage or injury. As such, a large street protest where a single participant threatens to push somebody could be deemed a "riot," with no actual violence or property damage being committed by anyone. The bill creates a Class I felony offense—punishable by up to 3.5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine—for anyone who intentionally incites another “to commit a ‘riot.’” The bill defines “incite” as “to urge, promote, organize, encourage, or instigate other persons.” As drafted, the incitement offense is not limited to urging actual violence against people or property, but could seemingly cover any expression of support for demonstrators in a crowd that had been deemed a “riot.” The bill also creates a Class H felony—punishable by up to 6 years in prison and $10,000—for someone who intentionally "commits an act of violence” (not defined) while part of a “riot.” Finally, the bill makes civilly liable protesters who allegedly commit a “riot” or “vandalism” offense, as well as any person or organization that provides “material support or resources” intending that they be used to engage in such conduct. Civil liability would apply regardless of whether anyone was criminally charged or convicted of “riot” or “#vandalism.” The bill’s definition of “material support” is similar to the broad federal law definition of material support for terrorism, and includes funding as well as “communications” and “training.” As such, the civil liability provisions could make individuals and groups even indirectly involved in organizing or otherwise supporting protests vulnerable to lawsuits and extensive monetary damages.

Full text of bill:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2025/proposals/reg/asm/bill/ab88

Status: pending

Introduced 28 Feb 2025.

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

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

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: #Texas

HB 3557: New criminal and civil penalties for protests around #CriticalInfrastructure

Creates new criminal sanctions and expansive civil liability for protests near pipelines and other infrastructure facilities, including those under construction. The law provides for four new criminal offenses. One, "impairing or interrupting operation of critical infrastructure facility," is defined as entering or remaining on facility property and intentionally or knowingly "impair[ing] or interrupt[ing] the operation of" the facility. The act is a state jail felony, punishable by up to two years in jail and a $10,000 fine. This provision could target peaceful protests that, e.g., hinder access to #pipelines or #pipeline construction sites. A second offense, "intent to impair or interrupt critical infrastructure," is defined as entering or remaining on facility property "with the intent to impair or interrupt the operation of the facility." The act is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by a year in jail and a $4,000 fine. This provision could capture peaceful protests that take place near a pipeline or other infrastructure facility, regardless of whether they actually impair or interrupt the facility's operations. The law also creates two new felony offenses for "damage" and "intent to damage" critical infrastructure. Under the law, an association that is found guilty of any of the offenses around critical infrastructure is subject to a $500,000 fine. The law also creates new civil and vicarious liability for individuals and organizations related to the criminal offenses: A defendant who engages in conduct covered by any of the criminal offenses is civilly liable to the property owner, as is an organization that "knowingly compensates" a person for engaging in the conduct. The property owner may sue for and claim actual damages, court costs, and exemplary damages.

Full text of bill:
https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=86R&Bill=HB3557

Status: enacted

Introduced 6 Mar 2019; Approved by House 7 May 2019; Approved by Senate 20 May 2019; Signed by Governor Abbott 14 June 2019

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

SB 2876: Heightened penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

Would increase criminal penalties that could cover peaceful protesters who choose to wear a mask. Under the bill, a protesters charged with “riot” would face more serious penalties if they were wearing a mask or other face covering with intent to conceal their identity, as compared to someone without a mask. The offense would be a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and $4,000, instead of a Class B misdemeanor. The crime of “riot” under Texas law is defined broadly and does not require violence or other unlawful conduct: The offense covers a group of seven demonstrators whose conduct “substantially obstructs law enforcement or other governmental function or services,” or whose “physical action deprives any person of a legal right or disturbs any person in the enjoyment of a legal right.” Under the bill, a protester who chose to wear a mask to avoid #retaliation for their political views could face significant jail time if their #NonviolentProtest was deemed a “#riot.”

Full text of bill:
https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SB2876

Status: pending

Introduced 14 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): Face Covering, Riot

HB 3061: Heightened penalties for masked protesters

Would increase the penalty for protest-related offenses if committed by someone wearing a mask or other disguise to conceal their identity while “congregating with other individuals who were disguised or masked.” Under the bill, the penalty for trespass, “disorderly conduct,” and “riot” would be one degree more severe if committed by a group in which some individuals wore masks. The bill provides an exemption to the penalty enhancement for masks worn during Halloween, a masquerade ball, or “similar celebration,” but not for avoiding retaliation for political speech. “Disorderly conduct” and “riot” are broadly defined under Texas law. Protesters who make “unreasonable noise” in public, for instance, may be charged with “disorderly conduct”; under the bill, such protesters could face significant jail time rather than a fine if they were masked. “Trespass” in Texas also carries significant penalties if committed on #CollegeCampuses, "critical infrastructure," or other select locations, such that peaceful protesters who trespassed on a college campus could face felony rather than misdemeanor penalties if they were masked to avoid retaliation.

Full text of bill:
https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=HB3061

Status: pending

Introduced 19 Feb 2025.

Issue(s): Campus Protests, Face Covering, Infrastructure, Riot, Trespass

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

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: #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: #NorthCarolina

HB 237: Heightened penalties for street #protesters and #MaskedProtesters

Increases penalties for protesters who block #traffic and for masked protesters who break any law. The law makes it a Class A1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 150 days in jail and a fine, to willfully impede traffic while participating in a demonstration on a street or highway. Second and subsequent offenses would be a Class H felony, punishable by up to 25 months in prison. Under the law, “organizers” of street protests can be held civilly liable for any injury resulting from delays caused by the obstruction of an emergency vehicle. The law does not define “organizer,” such that anyone involved in the planning of a protest might be covered, nor does it require that the “organizer” have any intent or knowledge that an emergency vehicle would be obstructed. Additionally, the law narrows the health-related exception to North Carolina’s ban on wearing masks in public, requiring that a mask worn for health or safety reasons must be a “medical or surgical grade” mask worn “to prevent[] the spread of contagious disease.” The law broadens the authority of law enforcement and third parties to require someone to remove their masks in such cases. Under the law, someone convicted of any offense, including nonviolent protest-related offenses, can face steeper punishment if they were wearing a mask or other face covering at the time, regardless of the reason for doing so. The bill’s sponsor cited recent #ProPalestine protests on college campuses, in which some protesters have worn masks.

Full text of bill:
https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookUp/2023/h237

Status: enacted

Introduced 7 May 2024; Approved by Senate 15 May 2024; Approved by House 11 June 2024; Vetoed by Governor Cooper 21 June 2024; Veto overridden 27 June 2024

Issue(s): Civil Liability, Face Covering, Traffic Interference

HB 40: HEIGHTENED PENALTIES FOR "RIOT" AND RELATED OFFENSES

Increases the penalty for an individual who "incites or urges another to engage in a riot," if a riot occurs and results in $1,500 of property damage or injury. In such a case, the individual is guilty of a Class E felony, punishable by more than two years in prison, even if they did not personally cause any damage or injury. Under the law, an individual convicted of "riot" or incitement offenses is also civilly liable to anyone whose property or person was damaged by the riot, in the amount of three times the actual damage in addition to court costs and attorney’s fees. Preexisting North Carolina law defines riot to include a "public disturbance" by a group of three or more people that presents an "imminent threat of disorderly and violent conduct," resulting in a "clear and present danger" of property damage or injury. Under this definition, no violence or damage need occur for participants in a gathering to be arrested for and charged with "riot." While the new law would add a limitation requiring an “overt act” in order for someone to be convicted of a #riot or incitement to riot offense, that requirement could be read broadly to include #PeacefulChanting or #marching with a crowd that is deemed to be a “riot.” Finally, the law requires that a judge, rather than another judicial official, determine the pretrial release of an individual charged with a riot offense. The judge may hold the individual for 24 hours, and may require that they stay away from places where the "riot" occurred. The text of HB 40 is nearly identical to the amended version of HB 805 that passed both the North Carolina House and Senate in 2021 before being vetoed by the Governor.

Full text of bill:
https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookUp/2023/h40

Status: enacted

Introduced 1 Feb 2023; Approved by House 8 February 2023; Approved by Senate 9 March 2023; Became law without Governor Cooper's signature 21 March 2023

Issue(s): Civil Liability, Riot

SB 58: New penalties for protests near #pipelines

Introduces new potential criminal penalties and civil liability for peaceful protests near existing and planned pipelines and other energy infrastructure. The enacted version of the law makes it a Class C felony offense to knowingly and willfully “obstruct, impede, or impair” or “attempt to obstruct, impede, or impair” the services of an energy facility. The law defines “energy facility” to include any facility involved in the transmission of “electricity, fuel, or another form or source of energy,” including facilities that are under construction or otherwise not functioning. As such, a group of people protesting the construction of a fossil fuel pipeline could face more than 15 years in prison and a mandatory $250,000 fine if they impede or impair the construction of a pipeline, for instance by blocking workers’ access to the pipeline construction site. Under the law, such protesters, along with anyone who “aides or abets, solicits, conspires, or lends material support” to their act of impeding construction could also be sued in civil court by someone whose property was damaged, for an amount equivalent to three times the actual damage as well as court costs and attorneys' fees.

Full text of bill:
https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookUp/2023/S58

Status: enacted

Introduced 1 Feb 2023; Approved by Senate 14 March 2023; Approved by House 14 June 2023; Signed by Governor Cooper 19 June 2023

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

SB 300: Heightened penalties for "riot"

**Note: This bill was later amended to remove all riot provisions except the increased penalties** Would increase the penalty for engaging in a "riot," from a Class 1 misdemeanor to a Class H felony, punishable by 25 months in prison. If the "riot" resulted in property damage of over $1,500, or serious injury, anyone deemed to have engaged in the "riot" (regardless of their role in the damage or injury) could be convicted of a Class G felony, punishable by 31 months in prison. The bill would not alter North Carolina's broad definition of "riot," which does not require any actual violence or destructive activity. Under the bill, peaceful protesters in a group of three or more who present an "imminent threat of disorderly and violent conduct" that "creates a clear and present danger" of property damage or injury could face felony convictions and lengthy prison sentences. Note: A later amendment eliminated the proposed increase in penalty for engaging in a "riot." It also eliminated the proposal to make it a Class G felony for engaging in a riot that resulted in property damage over $1,500 or serious bodily injury. Instead, it replaced that proposal by making it a Class G felony if during the course of a riot a person caused over $1,500 in property damage or a Class F felony if the person during the course of a riot caused serious bodily injury or brandished a dangerous weapon or substance. It also clarified that "mere presence alone without an overt act" is not sufficient to sustain a conviction of rioting. (See full text of bill here)

Status: enacted with improvements

Introduced 15 Mar 2021; Approved by Senate 12 May 2021; Approved by House 18 August 2021; Signed by Governor Cooper 2 September 2021

Issue(s): Riot

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

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

SF 1501: Heightened penalties for protesters who block #traffic

Would heighten penalties for protesters who intentionally “interfere with” or “disrupt” traffic that is entering, exiting, or on a freeway or a roadway on airport property. Under the bill, intentional traffic disruption on freeways or airport roadways would be a gross misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $3,000 fine. The relevant provisions are identical to HF 329 / SF 728.
Full text of bill: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/bill.php?b=Senate&f=SF1501&ssn=0&y=2025

Status: pending
Introduced 17 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): #Traffic =Interference

SF 1363: New penalties for pipeline protesters and supporters, and protesters who block traffic

Would create new civil and criminal liability for funders and supporters of protesters who peacefully demonstrate on pipeline or other utility property. Any person or entity that "recruits, trains, aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with" a person who trespasses onto a “critical public service facility, utility, or pipeline” would be civilly liable for any damages committed by the trespasser under the bill. They would also be guilty of a gross misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $3,000, if they fail to make a reasonable effort to prevent the violation. Additionally, the bill would make the person who trespasses onto the critical public service facility, utility, or pipeline strictly liable for civil damages. Similar provisions were introduced as SF 1493 in the 2023-2024 session. The bill would also make it a gross misdemeanor to obstruct traffic on a freeway or on a public road within airport property, with intent of obstructing or otherwise interfering with traffic. As written, the offense could cover protesters who even momentarily delayed cars on a freeway while demonstrating on the side of the freeway or on an overpass. Similar provisions were introduced as SF 1285/HF 1967 in the 2021-2022 session.
Full text of bill: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/bill.php?b=Senate&f=SF1363&ssn=0&y=2025

Status: pending
Introduced 13 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): Civil Liability, #ProtestSupporters or Funders, Infrastructure, Traffic Interference, Trespass

HF 329 / SF 728: Heightened penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would heighten penalties for protesters who intentionally “interfere with” or “disrupt” traffic that is entering, exiting, or on a freeway or a roadway on airport property. Under the bill, intentional traffic disruption on freeways or airport roadways would be a gross misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $3,000 fine. A nearly identical bill was proposed as HF 1967 / SF 1285, introduced in 2021.
Full text of bill: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/bill.php?f=HF329&y=2025&ssn=0&b=house

Status: pending
Introduced 13 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): Traffic Interference

HF 367 / SF 180: New civil liability for street protesters

Would allow third parties or the government to sue protesters if they interfere with traffic on certain public roads. Under the bill, someone who intentionally “interferes with” or “obstructs” passage on any “public highway” would be civilly liable for damages and attorneys fees. Any injured person, private entity, or state or local government could bring such a lawsuit, though the bill provides that the government cannot bring both a civil suit and criminal charges for the same conduct. “Highways” in Minnesota include many two-lane roads with stop signs and stoplights. As such, protesters whose demonstration paused or delayed traffic on certain roads could face costly litigation by, for instance, a company that claimed it was “damaged” by the delay.
Full text of bill:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/bill.php?b=House&f=HF367&y=2025&ssn=0

Status: pending
Introduced 13 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): Traffic Interference

SF 708: BARRING PUBLIC BENEFITS FOR PROTEST-RELATED OFFENSES

Would broadly disqualify a person convicted of an offense during a protest from receiving #PublicAssistance. Any "offense related to the person's illegal conduct at a protest, demonstration, rally, civil unrest, or march" would disqualify the person from a range of benefits, including #FoodAssistance, education #loans and grants, and #unemployment assistance. Under the bill, a person convicted of even a misdemeanor that is deemed somehow "related" to their participation in a peaceful protest could face permanent disqualification from such benefits. The same bill was introduced as SF 935 in 2023.
Full text of bill: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/bill.php?b=Senate&f=SF0708&ssn=0&y=2025

Status: pending
Introduced 27 Jan 2025.
Issue(s): Limit on Public Benefits

SF 702 / HF 2808: New civil immunity for drivers who hit protesters

Would shield from civil lawsuits drivers who hit street protesters in certain situations. The bill provides that anyone who unlawfully obstructs a roadway cannot sue a driver for any injury, loss, death or damage they suffered if the driver was seeking to “retreat or escape” from the roadway obstruction and believed they were in immediate danger of injury. An identical bill was introduced as SF 5500 in 2024.
Full text of bill: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/bill.php?b=Senate&f=SF0702&ssn=0&y=2025

Status: pending
Introduced 27 Jan 2025.
Issue(s): Driver Immunity

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

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: #Kentucky

HB 399: New penalties for protesters at the capitol

Creates serious new criminal offenses that can cover #PeacefulProtesters at the #StateCapitol, as well as anyone who “conspires” with or otherwise supports them. The first new offense applies to someone who enters the capitol, or impedes access to the capitol by a legislator or legislative staff, with intent to disrupt or impede legislative business—regardless of whether legislative business was in fact “impeded.” “Conspir[ing]” to engage in such conduct or “facilitat[ing]” another person to engage in the conduct is subject to the same penalties as actually engaging in it. It is a Class B misdemeanor (punishable by up to 3 months in jail) for a first incident, and a Class A misdemeanor (up to one year in jail) for subsequent incident. The law creates a second, more serious offense for someone who engages in “disorderly or disruptive conduct” inside the Capitol with intent to disrupt or impede legislative business, if their conduct in fact “disrupts” or “impedes” the legislature’s business—even momentarily. As written, the offense could cover a demonstrator who shouts a single chant during a legislative hearing. “Conspir[ing]” to engage in such conduct or “facilitat[ing]” another person to engage in the conduct is subject to the same penalties as actually engaging in it. The offense would be a Class A misdemeanor (punishable by up to one year in jail) for the first incident, and a Class D felony (up to 5 years in prison) for third and subsequent incident. Prior to passing the bill, lawmakers added an amendment which provides that the law will not be construed "to prohibit... [a]ssembly in traditional public forums, including but not limited to the Capitol rotunda and outdoor areas of the Capitol grounds." While helpful, the amendment does not immunize all peaceful protest activity that the law could potentially punish, including protest organizing. When he vetoed the bill (later overridden), Governor Beshear noted the risks it poses to lawful First Amendment activity.

Full text of bill:
https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/25rs/hb399.html

Status: enacted

Introduced 6 Feb 2025; Approved by House 7 March 2025; Approved by Senate 13 March 2025; Vetoed by Governor Beshear 25 March 2025; Veto overridden 27 March 2025

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Police Response

HB 44: New penalties for protests near #pipelines and other infrastructure

Creates new potential criminal and civil penalties for protests around oil or gas pipelines and other infrastructure facilities. Like HB 238, introduced in the 2019 session, HB 44 amends the definition of "key infrastructure assets" under Kentucky law to include "natural gas or petroleum pipelines." Encompassed facilities and properties designated "key infrastructure assets" are not limited to areas that are fenced off or posted by "no entry" signs. Trespass onto "key infrastructure assets" is a Class B misdemeanor for the first offense (up to three months in jail) and a Class A misdemeanor for subsequent offenses (up to one year in jail). As introduced, the bill created a new offense for a person who "intentionally or wantonly... tampers with, impedes, or inhibits operations of a key infrastructure asset." This conduct would comprise "criminal mischief in the first degree"--a Class D felony, which under Kentucky law can be punished by up to five years in prison. A protest that "impeded" access to a pipeline by blocking a road, or one that "inhibited" the operation of a pipeline by blocking pipeline construction, could presumably have fallen under this definition. Prior to the law's enactment, lawmakers removed the language penalizing activity that "impeded" or "inhibited" operations of infrastructure like a pipeline. The enacted version instead penalizes "tamper[ing] with the operations of a key infrastructure asset... in a manner that renders the operations harmful or dangerous." The introduced bill also provided that any "person" (which under Kentucky law could include an organization) may be civilly liable if they "knowingly compensate[] or remunerate[]" another person to commit criminal mischief on a key infrastructure asset. Prior to enactment, this was narrowed to anyone who "knowingly directs or causes a person" to commit the tampering offense.

Full text of bill:
https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/20rs/hb44.html

Status: enacted

Introduced 29 Aug 2019; Prefiled as BR 204 on 29 August 2019; Approved by House 10 February 2020; Approved by Senate 5 March 2020; Signed by Governor Beshear on 16 March 2020

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

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

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