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: #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: #Kansas

SB 172: New penalties for protests near gas and oil #pipelines

Creates four new criminal offenses that could capture the conduct of peaceful protesters near pipelines. Under the law, entering or remaining in a "critical infrastructure" facility, or on property containing such a facility if it is posted with signs or fenced off, is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $2,500 fine. Trespassing with intent to "tamper with" a critical infrastructure facility, or to "impede or inhibit" its operations, is a Level 7 felony, punishable by approximately 2 years in prison. Actually, knowingly "tampering with" the facility is a Level 6 felony, punishable by approximately 3 years in prison, and doing so with the intent to impede or inhibit the facility's operations is a Level 5 felony, punishable by approximately 4 years in prison. The law also creates a broad new definition of critical infrastructure," which includes among many other things "a portion of any belowground or aboveground oil, gas, hazardous liquid or chemical pipeline" or any storage, processing, or distribution facility for crude oil or natural gas. When it was introduced, the law included new penalties for "defacing" and "vandalizing" critical infrastructure; civil liability for any person or "entity" that provided compensation to someone to commit the offenses described above; and added the trespass and damage offenses above to the underlying crimes that could be prosecuted under the state's RICO law. These provisions were removed prior to the law's enactment.

Full text of bill:
https://www.kslegislature.gov/li_2022/b2021_22/measures/sb172/

Status: enacted

Introduced 8 Feb 2021; Approved by Senate 2 March 2021; Approved by House 30 March 2021; Signed by Governor Kelly 9 April 2021

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: #Florida

HB 275 / SB 340: New penalties for protests near gas and oil #pipelines

Creates a new felony offense for trespassing that could cover some protests near pipelines and other infrastructure that do not involve actual property damage. The law broadly defines “#CriticalInfrastructure” to include above or belowground pipelines, as well as a range of other gas, electricity, water, mining, and telecommunications facilities. Under the law, entering onto critical infrastructure property with notice that such entrance was prohibited is a 3rd degree felony offense. As such, protesters who cause no damage but merely enter onto posted property that contains a pipeline in the course of their protest could face felony charges and up to 5 years in prison if convicted. By contrast, trespassing onto private property is generally a 2nd degree misdemeanor, punishable by at most 60 days in jail. The House bill as originally also created an overbroad “improper tampering” felony offense, which would have included any unauthorized action to “change…the physical condition of the property or any portion thereof,” or to “knowingly and intentionally… deface” critical infrastructure property, but these provisions were removed by amendment.

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

Status: enacted

Introduced 25 Oct 2023; Approved by House 22 February 2024; Approved by Senate 28 February 2024; Signed by Governor #DeSantis 17 May 2024

Issue(s): Infrastructure, #Trespass

HB 1435/SB 1954: Charging protest organizers for the costs of responding to a protest

Would allow local authorities to require protest organizers to pay for "all relevant costs and fees associated with designating and enforcing" the zone established for a "special event," "including, but not limited to, costs and fees for the provision of supplemental law enforcement and sanitation services." While the bill's sponsors indicate that it was motivated by large, disruptive "pop-up" gatherings of cars like the "Daytona Truck Meet," it is written broadly enough to cover street protests and demonstrations. The bill defines a "special event" as an "unpermitted temporary activity or event organized or promoted via a social media platform" which is attended by 50 or more persons and substantially increases or disrupts the normal flow of traffic on a roadway, street, or highway." The bill also authorizes law enforcement to "enforce occupancy limits" in "special event zones"; which if applied to protests could allow police could limit the number of protest participants in a certain area.

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

Status: enacted

Introduced 10 Jan 2022; Approved by House 2 March 2022; Approved by Senate 4 March 2022; Approved by Governor DeSantis 26 May 2022

Issue(s): Security Costs

HB 1/SB 484: Expanded definition of "#riot" and new penalties for #protesters

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

Enlarges the legal definition of "riot," a 3rd degree felony, to include any group of three or more individuals whose shared intent to engage in disorderly and violent conduct results in "imminent danger" of property damage or personal injury, or actual damage or injury. Notably, the new definition does not require that the individuals' conduct be disorderly or violent, or that they commit any actual damage or injury. Under the new law, a "riot" consisting of 25 or more people, or one that "endangers the safe movement of a vehicle," is automatically an "aggravated riot," a new 2nd degree felony offense under the law. As such, large groups of protesters or ones that block traffic, even temporarily, could face up to 15 years in prison. Under the new law, "inciting" someone to participate in a riot is a 3rd degree felony, punishable by 5 years in prison. The law also creates a new criminal offense of "mob intimidation," defined as a group of three or more people who act with a "common intent" to compel "or attempt to compel" another person to "do or refrain from doing any act," or "assume, abandon, or maintain a particular viewpoint" against their will. The offense is a first degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail. The law creates a new 3rd degree felony offense, punishable by up to 5 years in prison, for anyone who "willfully and maliciously #defaces, injures, or otherwise damages by any means" #statues, #flags, #paintings, displays, or other "#memorials" and the value of the damage is more than $200. As "deface" is not defined, protesters who apply paint or graffiti to a monument in the course of a peaceful protest could face up to 5 years in prison. The law may encourage violence against protesters by creating a new affirmative defense in civil lawsuits for personal injury, death, or property damage, such that a defendant can avoid liability by establishing that the injury, death, or damage they committed "arose from" conduct by someone "acting in furtherance of a riot." Finally, the law creates a new civil right of action against a municipal government that fails to "respond appropriately to protect persons and property during a riot or unlawful assembly," making them civilly liable for damages, including personal injury or property damage. These provisions may encourage municipal governments to adopt overly aggressive law enforcement responses to protests in order to avoid lawsuits.

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

Status: enacted

Introduced 6 Jan 2021; Approved by House 26 March 2021; Approved by Senate 15 April 2021; Signed by Governor DeSantis 19 April 2021

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Driver Immunity, #PoliceResponse, Riot, #TrafficInterference, State Liability, #StandYourGround

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

[Thread] State by State Pending and Recently Passed #AntiProtestLaws: #Arizona

HB 2880: #Banning #protest encampments on campus

Would bar protest encampments on the campuses of state colleges and universities without prior authorization. Under the bill, individuals or groups that establish an unauthorized “encampment” would no longer be lawfully present on campus for the purpose of speech protections under Arizona law; they would be criminally liable to prosecution for trespass and damaging public property; and they would be liable for “direct and indirect costs” of any damage “that resulted from the individual’s intentional or negligent conduct relating” to the encampment. The bill defines “#encampment” as “temporary shelter” installed on campus and used to stay overnight or “for a prolonged period of time.” The bill would require colleges and universities to order individuals to dismantle and vacate unauthorized encampments; if the individuals refuse to comply, the institution would be required to take disciplinary action and report the individuals to local law enforcement for trespassing. The bill's sponsor said that it was motivated by #ProPalestine protests on college campuses.

Full text of bill here: https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview/83353

Status: pending

Introduced 12 Feb 2025; Approved by House 3 March 2025

Issue(s): Campus Protests, #Trespass, Camping

HB 2007: Harsh penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

**Note: HB 2007 was signed into law following amendments that removed the most restrictive provisions.** As originally introduced in the House, the bill made it a felony to wear any kind of #disguise at a protest. The introduced bill broadly prohibited disguises, "whether partial or complete," that an individual wore at a protest, political event, or any other public event in order "to evade or escape discovery, recognition or identification." Under the introduced bill, police would have had authority to detain any individual wearing a disguise in order to verify his or her identity and determine if the person had committed a crime; violation of the disguise ban would have been a Class 6 felony, subject to one year in prison. The sponsor of the bill said it was inspired by clashes between police and protesters, some of whom were masked, outside a 2017 rally for President #Trump. Following widespread criticism, the bill was comprehensively revised to a single provision that would allow courts to consider it an aggravating factor, for sentencing purposes, if an individual wore a #mask or other disguise to hide their face while committing a criminal offense.

Full bill text here: https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview/69619

Status: enacted with improvements

Introduced 21 Nov 2017; Governor Ducey signed it 23 March 2018 but the most problematic provisions were defeated.

Issue(s): #FaceCovering

#FirstAmendment #CriminalizingDissent
#Authoritarianism #Fascism #Clampdown #CriminalizingProtest
#CharacteristicsOfFascism #USPol #CriminalizingDissent #AntiProtestLaws
#StudentProtests #CampusProtests #FreePalestineProtests #Facemasks