When are #ICEProtests ‘illegal’ in #Texas? Here’s what state and federal laws say

By Tiffani Jackson Updated June 12, 2025

Excerpt: "What are your rights to protest on public or private property? Your rights are strongest in “traditional public forums,” like parks, sidewalks and streets, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. While you generally have the freedom to express yourself on other public land, like plazas outside government buildings, it’s important that your actions don’t block access or interfere with the building’s intended function.

"On private property, the owner has the right to impose restrictions on speech. However, the government cannot limit your speech if you’re on your own property or have permission from the owner. It’s also important to remember that counter-protesters have the same rights to free expression, and police must treat both protesters and counter-protesters equally.

"Is it legal to take photos or video protests, police or government buildings? You are legally allowed to photograph anything in plain view, including government buildings and law enforcement officers, when you’re in a public area.

"On private property, however, the property owner may have their own rules about photography or video recording.

"What is an ‘illegal protest’? Protesting is a fundamental right protected by the First Amendment, but not every demonstration is automatically legal. According to the Freedom Forum, a nonpartisan foundation dedicated to preserving the First Amendment, the following actions can cross the line and turn a peaceful protest into one that could get you arrested:

- Violence or destruction of property – If a protest turns violent, involves #vandalism, or causes harm to people or property, it’s no longer protected under #FreeSpeech laws.

- Trespassing on private property – Protests are generally allowed in public spaces, like sidewalks and parks. But if demonstrators enter private property without permission, they could face trespassing charges.

- Blocking roads or public services – #Marching in the street without a permit or blocking traffic can make a protest illegal. Many cities require permits for demonstrations, especially those that could disrupt public order.

" 'It can’t be about the content of the speech, because content and viewpoint are protected by the #First =Amendment,' TCU media law professor and First Amendment expert Daxton “Chip” Stewart said. 'It has to be about something else. A protest that #BlocksTraffic, for example, or that arises to violence.' Texas laws about protesting

"According to the Texas Law Library, there are specific restrictions on where protests cannot take place.

"For example, it’s illegal to protest within 1,000 feet of a funeral service from three hours before to three hours after the event, as this could disrupt the service. Likewise, protests at #CriticalInfrastructure sites, like oil pipelines or #construction areas, are heavily regulated, with severe penalties for trespassing or disrupting these facilities.

"Additionally, blocking #highways, #sidewalks or any passageways that are accessible to the public — especially emergency routes—is prohibited, and doing so can lead to felony charges.

"#Protests that turn disorderly or disrupt lawful meetings also fall under legal restrictions. Finally, any actions that involve violence or #loud, disruptive noise are subject to criminal penalties.

"What are your rights if you protest on college campus? In 2019, Texas passed a law that made all common outdoor spaces on public university campuses 'traditional public forums.'

"This means that anyone — whether you’re a student, staff member, or just someone from the community — can express themselves, whether that’s through protests or other demonstrations, as long as it’s lawful and doesn’t seriously disrupt the university’s operations."

Read more:
https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/fort-worth/article308416530.html

#TexasResists #NoKingsEvents
#NonViolentProtests #ProtestLaws #Project2025 #Authoritarianism #AntiProtestLaws #TrafficInterference

2/2 US Protest Law Tracker - Updates to #Federal #Protest Laws introduced in 2025.

Latest updates: Jun. 10, 2025 (US Federal)

#S982: 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 #ProPalestine campus protests as motivation for the bill; he introduced the same bill in 2024.
(Full text of bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/982)
Status: pending
Introduced 12 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Riot

#HR2065: 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.
(Full text of bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/2065/text?s=1&r=64&q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22actionDate%3A%5C%22119%7C2025-03-11%5C%22+AND+%28billIsReserved%3A%5C%22N%5C%22+OR+type%3A%5C%22AMENDMENT%5C%22%29%22%7D)
Status: pending
Introduced 11 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): #FaceCovering

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.
(Read full text of bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/937)
Status: pending
Introduced 11 Mar 2025.
Issue(s): Campus Protests, Limit on Public Benefits

#HR1057: 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.
(Full text of bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1057)
Status: pending
Introduced 6 Feb 2025.
Issue(s): #TrafficInterference

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

HB 3135: New penalties for #protesters who block #streets and #sidewalks

Would create new penalties for protesters who block streets, sidewalks, and other public passageways. Under the bill, someone who obstructs a highway, street, sidewalk or “other place used for the passage of persons, vehicles, or conveyances,” whether alone or with others, commits a misdemeanor, punishable by at least $500 and one month in jail. A second or subsequent offense would be a felony, punishable by at least $1,000 and at least three months and up to three years in prison. The bill defines “obstruct” to include conduct that makes passage “unreasonably inconvenient.” As such, protesters on a sidewalk who were deemed to have made it “unreasonably inconvenient” for pedestrians to pass could face jail terms. A substantially similar bill was introduced as HB 5446 in 2024.

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

Status: pending

Introduced 4 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

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

Would create several new, sweeping “terrorism” offenses that could cover nonviolent protesters. One new offense, “terrorist violent #MassAction,” is defined to include “violent protests” and “riots” that “appear intended” to coerce or intimidate groups, governments, or societies. The bill provides that participation in a “terrorist violent mass action” constitutes an “terrorist act,” and any entity that uses such actions “to advance its agenda” is a “terrorist group.” “Violent protest” is not defined in the bill or elsewhere in the law, nor does the bill require that a person individually commit any act of violence or property damage to be culpable of “terrorist violent mass action.” As such, someone who peacefully participates in a #nonviolent but #rowdy protest where a few individuals commit #PropertyDamage could conceivably face “terrorism” charges. Likewise, a #NonprofitGroup involved in organizing or supporting such a protest “to advance its agenda” could be deemed a “#TerroristOrganization” under the bill. Individuals and organizations not directly involved in such a protest could also face felony “terrorism” charges for providing protesters with “material support”—broadly defined by the bill as “any property, tangible or intangible, or service.” The bill also creates a new felony “terrorism” offense for “actions… taken for political reasons to bar other persons from exercising their freedom of movement, via foot or any other conveyance.” As written, that could cover a large, peaceful march that even temporarily stops traffic. Meanwhile, the bill provides complete immunity for people who “injure perpetrators or supporters of perpetrators” while attempting to “escape” such “terrorism.” This provision would seem to eliminate consequences for acts of violence against protesters by people whose movement has been blocked by a protest, including drivers who hit protesters with their cars. The bill also creates new felony “threatening terrorism” offenses for a person or group that "for political reasons blockades property containing critical infrastructure,” or that “trespasses for political reasons onto property containing critical infrastructure.” As such, nonviolent protesters who block a road to a pipeline or enter onto pipeline property could face “threatening terrorism” charges, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. A nearly identical bill was proposed in 2024 (HB 4994) and 2023 (HB 2916).

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

Status: pending

Introduced 21 Feb 2025.

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

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

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

SB 173: Criminal penalties for protests that disturb legislative or other government meetings

Creates new potential penalties for individuals protesting convenings of the legislature or other meetings of government officials. The law expands "disorderly conduct" to include a person who recklessly causes public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm by making "unreasonable noises" at an official meeting or in a private place that can be heard at an official meeting. "#DisorderlyConduct" also includes obstructing #PedestrianTraffic at an official meeting or refusing to leave an official meeting when asked by law enforcement. The law also increases the penalty for disorderly conduct, such that it is punishable by a $750 fine on the first offense (an infraction), up to 3 months in jail if a person was warned to cease prohibited conduct (Class C misdemeanor), up to 6 months for a second offense (Class B misdemeanor), and up to 1 year for a third offense (Class A misdemeanor). Accordingly, the law could, for example, be used to penalize silent protesters who refuse to leave a legislative committee meeting. An earlier version of the bill explicitly made it unlawful to commit even a "single, loud outburst, absent other disruptive conduct, that does not exceed five seconds in length."

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

Status: enacted

Introduced 24 Feb 2020; Approved by Senate 5 March 2020; Approved by House 12 March 2020; Signed by Governor 30 March 2020

HB 370: New Penalties for Protests Near #Pipelines, #Roadways, and other #Infrastructure

**Note: This bill was amended prior to its passage, and provisions that would have covered peaceful protest activity were significantly narrowed.** As introduced, the bill would have created new potential criminal liability for protesters in many locations by criminalizing acts that "inhibit" or "impede" critical infrastructure facilities. The bill's original text had a sweeping definition of "critical infrastructure facility" that included highways, bridges, transportation systems, food distribution systems, law enforcement response systems, financial systems, and energy infrastructure including pipelines--whether under construction or operational. The bill created a new felony offense for "inhibiting," or "impeding" the facility, its equipment, or operation, such that protesters who intentionally inhibited or impeded the operation of a roadway or construction of a pipeline could have faced life in prison. Amendments to the bill substantially narrowed the offense, however. The enacted law criminalizes "substantially... inhibiting or impeding" the operation of critical infrastructure only if doing so "causes widespread injury or damage to persons or property." Amendments also narrowed the definition of "critical infrastructure facility," including by removing highways, bridges, transportation systems, food distribution systems, law enforcement response systems, and financial systems from the definition.

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

Status: enacted with improvements

Introduced 3 Feb 2023; Approved by House 14 February 2023; Approved by Senate 28 February 2023; Signed by Governor Cox 14 March 2023

Issue(s): Infrastructure, #TrafficInterference

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

Pending & recently passed #AntiProtestLaws: #Tennessee

SB 30 / HB 55: Expanded #LawEnforcement powers and potential new penalties for #protesters

Creates new crimes and increases penalties for existing offenses that could be used against peaceful protesters. The new law makes it a Class B misdemeanor offense, punishable by up to 6 months in jail, for a person to approach within 25 feet of a police officer after being warned not to, if the officer is engaged in official duties. Under the law, police would have expansive discretion to issue such a warning by citing "an ongoing and immediate threat to public safety," such that they could, for instance, arrest demonstrators who marched towards a police line after being warned not to, even if the demonstrators’ conduct was otherwise lawful. The law significantly increases the penalties for “civil rights intimidation,” a broadly drafted offense that could be applied to protesters who are perceived to demonstrate with the intent of “intimidating” someone from exercising their rights or because they exercised their rights. As such, for instance, protesting in a way that is deemed to “coerce” another (defined by law to include threatening to expose someone to “contempt or ridicule”) with the intent to intimidate them, would be a Class D felony punishable by up to 12 years in prison. The law newly criminalizes trespassing with the intent to intimidate, such that protesters who enter onto private property could face arrest and Class A misdemeanor charges, punishable by up to a year in jail, based on their perceived "intent to unlawfully intimidate another." The new law also makes it a Class B misdemeanor to hang unauthorized banners and signs on bridges, overpasses, or tunnels, newly criminalizing a common protest tactic.
(Full text of bill: https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB0030&GA=114)
Status: ENACTED!
Introduced 2 Jan 2025; Approved by Senate 14 April 2025; Approved by House 21 April 2025; Signed by Governor Lee 9 May 2025
Issue(s): Police Response, Trespass

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; 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

#CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #USPol

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

SB 151: New penalties for #protests near #pipelines and other infrastructure

Heightens potential penalties for protests near oil and gas pipelines and other infrastructure. Under the law, knowingly trespassing on property containing a critical infrastructure facility is a misdemeanor punishable by a year in prison and a $2,000 fine. Knowingly tampering with any property and as a direct result interfering, inhibiting, or impeding the maintenance or construction of a critical infrastructure facility is a felony punishable by two years in prison and/or a $4,000 fine. A person or organization found to be a "conspirator" in any of the above offenses faces a range of criminal fines. Any owner, lessee, or operator of any critical infrastructure facility where a crime is committed under one of the above provisions is designated a "victim" under South Dakota law, which entitles them to restitution and other victims' rights. As such, a company that owns a critical infrastructure facility can seek restitution from an individual protester convicted of any of the above provisions, as well as from any person or entity found to be a "conspirator."

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

Status: enacted

Introduced 4 Feb 2020; Approved by Senate 27 February 2020; Approved by House 9 March 2020; Signed by Governor March 18 2020

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

HB 1117: New criminal and civil liability for "incitement to riot"

Revises the state's laws on rioting and replaces a "riot-boosting" law that was passed in 2019 but later blocked by a federal court as unconstitutional. The law revises the definition of "riot" under South Dakota law to be "any intentional use of force or violence by three or more persons, acting together and without authority of law, to cause any injury to any person or any damage to property." Under the law, "incitement to riot" is a new felony offense, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and $10,000 in fines, and defined as conduct that "urges" three or more people to use force or violence to cause personal injury or property damage, if the force or violence is "imminent" and the urging is likely to "incite or produce" the force or violence. The law defines "urging" to include "instigating, inciting, or directing," but excludes "oral or written advocacy of ideas or expression of belief that does not urge" imminent force or violence. Under the law, individuals may additionally be civilly liable for riot and incitement to riot, enabling lawsuits against protesters by the state, counties, or municipalities. Both 2019's "riot-boosting" law and HB 1117 appear to target protests against construction of the #KeystoneXL and other pipelines.

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

Status: enacted

Introduced 29 Jan 2020; Approved by House 18 February 2020; Approved by Senate 5 March 2020; Signed by Governor Noem 23 March 2020

Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Riot

SB 189: Expanded civil liability for protesters and protest funders

**Note: According to an October 24, 2019 settlement agreement that resulted from a constitutional challenge to SB189, the state will not enforce many of the provisions of the law that could be applied to peaceful protesters and organizations that support them.** SB189 created new civil liability for "riot boosters." South Dakota criminal law defines "riot" broadly such that it can cover some forms of peaceful protest; as originally enacted, SB189 created civil liability for a person or organization that "does not personally participate in any riot but directs, advises, encourages, or solicits other persons participating in the riot to acts of force or violence." It was unclear what might have constituted "advice" or "encouragement" to carry out an act of force, such that an individual who shouted encouragement on the sidelines of a disruptive protest, or organizations that provided advice about conducting a peaceful but disruptive protest, might have been implicated. Following the October 24, 2019 settlement, the state will not enforce this provision. Nonetheless, enforceable provisions of the law still establish civil liability for any person or organization that is advised or encouraged by another, and that "makes any threat to use force or violence, if accompanied by immediate power of execution" in a group of three or more persons. The state or a third party may sue the person or organization for extensive civil damages, including punitive damages. Further, enforceable provisions of the law provide that a person or organization is liable for "riot boosting" if they engage in it personally "or through any employee, agent, or subsidiary." Accordingly, individuals, organizations, and funders may still be held civilly liable for substantial amounts of money for any involvement in a disruptive protest. Damages recovered by the state shall, according to the law, be deposited in a "riot boosting recovery fund," which may be used to pay for the state's response to disruptive protests. The law was introduced in response to pipeline protests in other states and ahead of construction of the Keystone XL pipeline in South Dakota.

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

Status: enacted

Introduced 4 Mar 2019; Approved by Senate 7 March 2019; Approved by House 7 March 2019; Signed by Governor Noem 27 March 2019

Issue(s): #CivilLiability, #ProtestSupporters or Funders, Infrastructure, Riot

SB 176: Expanding governor's power to restrict certain protests

Expands the governor's authority to curtail protest activities on public lands and restricts protests that interfere with highway traffic. The law enables the governor and sheriff to prohibit gatherings of 20 or more people on public land, if the gathering might damage the land or interfere with the renter's use of the land. The law enables South Dakota's Department of Transportation to prohibit or otherwise restrict an individual or vehicle from stopping, standing, parking, or being present on any highway if it interferes with traffic. The law also expands the crime of trespass, providing that an individual who defies a posted order not to enter a zone where assembling has been prohibited would be guilty of criminal trespass. Obstructing traffic or committing criminal trespass are classified as Class 1 misdemeanors, punishable by one year in jail or a $2,000 fine, or both. The law was proposed by Governor Daugaard to address potential pipeline protests.

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

Status: enacted

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

Issue(s): #TrafficInterference, #Trespass

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

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

HB 2534: Felony penalties for protesters who impede traffic

Would expand the definition of “riot” such that the felony offense could cover demonstrators who peacefully protest in the street. Oregon law defines “riot” as engaging in “tumultuous and violent conduct” with a group of five or more other people in a way that “intentionally or recklessly creates a grave risk of causing public alarm.” The offense is a Class C felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and $125,000. The bill would define “tumultuous and violent conduct” to include “imped[ing] traffic,” creating a “traffic hazard,” or “block[ing] the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.” As such, a large sidewalk protest that even momentarily overflowed onto a street in a way that could be considered a “traffic hazard” could be deemed a “riot,” and demonstrators could face felony penalties regardless of whether their conduct was “tumultuous” or “violent.”

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

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Jan 2025.

Issue(s): #Riot, #TrafficInterference

HB 2772: Criminalizing Certain Protests as #DomesticTerrorism

**Note: This bill was amended prior to its passage and provisions that would have covered peaceful protest activity were significantly narrowed.** As introduced, the bill would have created a sweeping new crime of "domestic terrorism" that would include if a person intentionally attempted to cause "disruption of daily life" that "severely affects the population, infrastructure, environment, or government functioning of this state." Under this definition, a peaceful protest that blocked traffic in a major commercial district could be defined as domestic terrorism, a Class B felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. Lawmakers substantially amended the bill prior to its enactment, however rights groups argue that it could still cover certain acts of civil disobedience. Under the enacted law, “domestic terrorism” in the first degree is a Class B felony and includes intentionally destroying or substantially damaging “critical infrastructure,” with the intent to disrupt the services provided by critical infrastructure. Attempting to destroy or substantially damage critical infrastructure is a Class C felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a fine of $125,000. “#CriticalInfrastructure” is broadly defined to include #pipelines and #roads.

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

Status: enacted with improvements

Introduced 9 Jan 2023; Approved by House 8 June 2023; Approved by Senate 23 June 2023; Signed by Governor Kotek 4 August 2023

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Terrorism, Traffic Interference

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

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

HB 1674: Penalties for #protesters who block #traffic, immunity for drivers who hit protesters, and liability for organizations that work with protesters

**Note: Portions of HB1674 were preliminarily enjoined by a federal district judge on October 27, 2021, temporarily blocking enforcement of the law's 1) penalties for protesters who obstruct traffic, and 2) penalties for organizations that "conspire" with someone who is convicted of certain protest-related offenses.** Creates new penalties for protesters who obstruct traffic while participating in a "riot," and protects drivers who "unintentionally" hit them. Under the law, a person who participated in a "riot" and "obstructed" the "normal use" of a public street or highway, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in prison, a $5,000 fine, and restitution for any property damage that occurs. The law defines "obstruct" to include rendering the street or highway "unreasonably inconvenient or hazardous" for cars' passage, including by "standing" on the street or highway. "Riot" is broadly defined under existing Oklahoma law, to include a group of three or more people who make "any threat to use force." The new law also shields from liability a driver who injures or kills someone while "fleeing from a riot," as long as they did so "unintentionally," were "exercising due care," and held a "reasonable belief" that they needed to flee to protect themselves. Under the law, such a driver cannot be held civilly or criminally liable for the injuries or death they caused. Finally, the law provides that an organization found to have "conspired" with individuals who are found guilty of certain offenses--including "unlawful assembly," "riot," "incitement to riot," refusing to aid in the arrest of a "rioter," and remaining at the scene of a "riot" after being ordered to disperse--may be fined ten times the maximum amount of fine authorized for the individual's offense.

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

Status: enacted

Introduced 2 Feb 2021; Approved by House 10 March 2021; Approved by Senate 14 April 2021; Signed by Governor Stitt 21 April 2021

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

HB 2095: Racketeering penalties for those involved in "unlawful assemblies"

Adds "unlawful assemblies" to the offenses that can be prosecuted as "#racketeering activity" under Oklahoma's #RICO statute. As a result, an organization or individual found to have "attempted" or "conspired" with individuals to engage in or encourage a protest that is deemed an "unlawful assembly" can be prosecuted under RICO and subject to felony penalties. Oklahoma law broadly defines "unlawful assembly" to include a group of three or more people who gather without lawful authority in a manner "as is adapted to disturb the public peace."

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

Status: enacted

Introduced 1 Feb 2021; Approved by House 8 March 2021; Approved by Senate 21 April 2021; Signed by Governor Stitt 28 April 2021

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders

HB 1123: New penalties for protests near #CriticalInfrastructure

Targets protests around certain public facilities by creating a new criminal offense for trespass onto property containing "critical infrastructure." The law's extensive list of "critical infrastructure" facilities ranges from a petroleum refinery to a telephone pole. Willfully entering onto property containing critical infrastructure without permission is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to $1,000 or six month in jail, or both. Evidence of intent to damage or otherwise harm the operations of the infrastructure facility would make the offence a felony, punishable by at least $10,000 (with no maximum provided) or imprisonment for one year, or both; actual damage or vandalizing of the facility is punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $100,000 fine. Organizations found to have "conspired" with perpetrators are liable for up to $1,000,000. The sponsor of the law told a House of Representatives committee that it was prompted by the #DakotaAccessPipeline protests in North Dakota.

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

Status: enacted

Introduced 6 Feb 2017; Signed into law 3 May 2017

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure, Trespass

HB 2128: Heightened penalties for protesters who #trespass onto private property

Increases the potential penalties levied on individuals who protest on private property without permission. The law allows prosecutors to hold anyone arrested for or convicted of trespass liable for any damages to personal or real property caused while# trespassing.

Status: enacted

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

Issue(s): Trespass

SB 743: Ban on protests that disturb #worshippers

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

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

Status: pending

Introduced 25 Mar 2025; Approved by Senate 27 March 2025

SB 481: Restrictions on #PublicEmployees' ability to protest

Would broadly prohibit public employees from participating in protests during work hours in most situations. Under a committee substitute to the bill introduced on February 25, it would be unlawful for state or local government employees including public school teachers to “speak on or participate in a matter of public concern deemed a matter of larger societal significance” in “an organized form of protest” during their normal working hours. The bill would allow public employees to protest during working hours only if they were using annual leave and if their actions did not create “an undue burden on the employer’s interest in an efficient, disruptive-free workplace”—a vaguely worded condition that employers could abuse to restrict employees' participation in disfavored protests. The bill would also prohibit public employees from using publicly owned computers, transportation, or other equipment for conduct related to participation in protests.

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

Status: pending

Introduced 25 Feb 2025.

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

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

S 6746: New penalties for protesters who wear a #mask

Would create a new criminal offense, “concealment of identity during a protest,” that would cover peaceful protesters who wear a mask while demonstrating. Under the bill, a person who wears a mask or facial covering that disguises their face “so as to conceal the identity of the wearer” while “involved in a lawful assembly, unlawful assembly, protest, or riot” commits the offense. The bill provides an exception for masks and other face coverings worn as protection from weather, for religious reasons, for medical purposes, or as a costume for a holiday or exhibition. While only a violation, the new offense would restrict individuals’ ability to protest lawfully while remaining anonymous, for instance to avoid retaliation.

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

Introduced 21 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): #FaceCovering, Riot

S 5911: Heightened penalties for #riot and incitement to riot

Would enhance the penalties for first and second degree "riot" as well as "incitement to riot." Under New York law, "incitement to riot" is broadly defined, and could cover a person or organization found to have "urged" a group of people to protest in a "tumultuous and violent" way that is “likely to create public alarm”—regardless of whether such protest ever takes place or creates “public alarm.” The bill would make the offense a Class E felony, punishable by up to four years in prison, instead of a Class A misdemeanor.

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

Status: pending

Introduced 3 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): Riot

S 723: New criminal penalties for masked protesters

Would create two new crimes that could apply to masked protesters and people who support them. Under the bill, a person who is masked or “disguised by unusual or unnatural attire or facial alteration,” who engages in a protest or other public assembly with other masked or disguised people, commits the offense of “deceptive wearing of a mask,” a Class B misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days in jail. The offense would likewise apply to anyone who “knowingly permits or aids” masked demonstrators who congregate in public. The offense does not require that an individual act unlawfully or have any intent to engage in unlawful behavior. A second offense, “aggravated deceptive wearing of a mask,” would apply to masked or disguised individuals engaged in a public assembly where property damage or injuries occur; the offense would be a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail. (As drafted, the bill does not make clear whether an individual need personally cause the damage or injury, or merely be part of a group where such damage or injury occurs, to commit the offense.) The bill provides exemptions for masks or disguises worn for religious purposes, or in connection with a government-authorized “masquerade party or like entertainment.” If enacted, the bill would give law enforcement broad discretion to arrest individuals who wear masks or other disguise at a public protest, as well as anyone who seemed to be “aiding” them. The same bill was introduced as S 9194 in the 2023-2024 session.

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

Status: pending

Introduced 8 Jan 2025.

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

S 534: New penalties for protesters who block #traffic

Would create a new criminal offense that could cover #UnpermittedProtests and #demonstrations on #streets, #sidewalks, or near public buildings. According to the bill, a person participating in a protest without a permit who “obstructs” cars or pedestrians, or prevents people from entering or exiting buildings, commits a new offense of “aggravated disorderly conduct” if they intend “to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm” or are “recklessly creating a risk thereof.” The offense would be a class A misdemeanor, punishable by one year in jail and $1,000. As written, an individual in a spontaneous protest that blocks a sidewalk, “recklessly creating a risk” of inconveniencing people, would be guilty of the offense. The bill would also add the offense to the underlying offenses that can be charged as a hate crime under New York law, and allow individuals arrested for the offense to be held for bail. The same bill was introduced as S 8646 in 2024.

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

Status: pending

Introduced 8 Jan 2025.

Issue(s): #TrafficInterference

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