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 1

HB 5091: Heightened penalties for #protesters near #pipelines and other infrastructure

Increases the penalties and broaden offenses that could cover nonviolent protesters near pipelines and other infrastructure. The law amends West Virginia’s 2020 critical infrastructure law to remove the limitation that the law’s offenses could only occur on critical infrastructure property “if completely enclosed by a fence or other physical barrier that is obviously designed to exclude intruders, or if clearly marked with a sign or signs that.. indicate that entry is forbidden.” As a result, many more infrastructure sites are covered by the 2020 law’s trespass and tampering offenses, which carry significant penalties. The law also makes convictions for second and subsequent offenses of either the trespassing or tampering offenses a felony punishable by at least 2 and up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $10,000-$15,000. The law increases the fine for a person who “vandalizes, defaces, or tampers with” equipment in a critical infrastructure facility that causes damage of more than $2,500, from $1,000-$5,000 to $3,000-$10,000. (As introduced, the bill made second convictions punishable by a minimum of 5 years and a fine of $100,000-$250,000, and increased the fine for tampering or vandalizing from $1,000-$5,000 to $25,000-$100,000.)

Full text of bill:
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=5091&year=2024&sessiontype=RS

Status: enacted

Introduced 25 Jan 2024; Approved by House 6 February 2024; Approved by Senate 4 March 2024; Signed by Governor Justice 26 March 2024

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass

HB 4615: New penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines

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 punishable by a year in jail and a $500 fine. Criminal trespass on critical infrastructure property with intent to "vandalize, deface, tamper with equipment, or impede or inhibit operations" of the facility is a felony punishable by up to three years in prison and a $1,000 fine. Actually vandalizing, defacing, or tampering with the facility--regardless of actual damage--is a felony punishable by 5 years in prison and a $2,000 fine. An individual convicted of any of the offenses, and any entity that "compensates, provides consideration to or remunerates" a person for committing the offenses, is also civilly liable for any damage sustained. An organization or person found to have "conspired" to commit any of the offenses--regardless of whether they were committed--is subject to a criminal fine. The law newly defines "critical infrastructure facility" under West Virginia law to include a range of oil, gas, electric, water, telecommunications, and railroad facilities that are fenced off or posted with signs indicating that entry is prohibited.

Full text of bill:
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=4615&year=2020&sessiontype=RS

Status: enacted

Introduced 30 Jan 2020; Approved by House 13 February 2020; Approved by Senate 7 March 2020; Signed by Governor Justice 25 March 2020

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

HB 4618: Eliminating #PoliceLiability for deaths while dispersing #riots and unlawful assemblies

Reaffirms West Virginia's problematic law on rioting, and adds the West Virginia Capitol Police to those authorities who cannot be held liable for the deaths and wounding of individuals in the course of dispersing riots and unlawful assemblies. Under prior West Virginia law, the State Police, sheriffs, and mayors had authority to use means such as curfews and warrantless searches to disperse riots and unlawful assemblies; the law reaffirms and extends this authority to the Capitol Police. According to the law, if a bystander is asked to assist in the dispersal and fails to do so, he or she "shall be deemed a rioter." The law also adds Capitol Police to existing provisions eliminating liability if anyone present, "as spectator or otherwise, be killed or wounded," while the authorities used "any means" to disperse riots or unlawful assemblies or arrest those involved. The law was passed during a statewide strike by #WestVirginiaTeachers, thousands of whom protested in February 2018 at the #StateCapitol.

Full text of bill:
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=4618&year=2018&sessiontype=RS

Status: enacted

Introduced 13 Feb 2018; Approved by House 22 February 2018; Approved by Senate 8 March 2018; Signed by Governor Justice 10 March 2018

Issue(s): Police Response, Riot

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

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

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

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

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

Status: enacted

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

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

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

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

Status: enacted with improvements

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

Issue(s): Infrastructure, #TrafficInterference

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

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

SB 2044: Heightened penalties for #protests near #CriticalInfrastructure

Enhances potential penalties for individuals who protest near existing and planned gas and oil #pipelines by criminalizing acts that interrupt or interfere with critical infrastructure facilities. In addition to prohibiting actual tampering with critical infrastructure property and equipment, the law prohibits "interfering, inhibiting, impeding, or preventing the construction or repair" of a critical infrastructure facility. Further, the law expands the definition of "critical infrastructure facility" to include a "site or location designated or approved for the construction of a facility" such as an oil or gas pipeline. Intentional interruption of a critical infrastructure facility, including by interfering with pipeline construction, is a Class C felony under the law, subject to a penalty of five years' imprisonment, a fine of $10,000, or both. The law also creates organizational liability for such acts: An organization found to have "conspired" with an individual who committed the interference could be criminally liable for ten times the fee imposed on the individual, or up to $100,000.

Status: enacted

Introduced 3 Jan 2019; Approved by Senate 15 Feb 2019; Approved by House 25 March 2019; Signed by Governor Burgum 10 April 2019

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure

HB 1426: Heightened penalties for #riot offences

Increases the penalties imposed for riot offenses. Under the law, participation in a riot is a Class A rather than Class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison and a $3,000 fine. Engaging in a riot involving more than 100 people is made a Class B felony, subject to 10 years in prison and a $20,000 fine.

Full text of bill [pdf]:
https://ndlegis.gov/assembly/65-2017/documents/17-8158-02000.pdf

Status: enacted

Introduced 16 Jan 2017; Governor Burgum signed the law on 23 Feb 2017

Issue(s): Riot

HB 1293: Expanded scope of criminal trespass

Expands the scope of criminal trespass activity under state law such that it could encompass protests, demonstrations, or other gatherings on private property, if notice against trespass is "clear from the circumstances." The offense could be punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a $1,500 fine. The law also creates an additional, noncriminal trespass offense and allows officers to issue a citation with a $250 fine for trespassing. The law was part of a package of legislation introduced in response to the #DakotaAccessPipeline protests.

Full text of bill [pdf]:
https://ndlegis.gov/assembly/65-2017/documents/17-0650-04000.pdf

Status: enacted

Introduced 12 Jan 2017; Signed by Governor Burgum 23 Feb 2017

Issue(s): Trespass

HB 1304: New penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

Prohibits the wearing of #masks, #hoods, or other device that "conceals any portion" of an individual's face while committing a criminal offense, in order to avoid recognition or identification. As drafted, the offense could encompass, e.g., individuals wearing hooded clothing while participating in a protest and also committing a minor offense such as jaywalking. Under the law, commission of the offense comprises a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $3,000 fine.

Full text of bill [pdf]:
https://ndlegis.gov/assembly/65-2017/documents/17-0311-04000.pdf

Status: enacted

Introduced 12 Jan 2017; Governor Burgum signed it 23 Feb 2017

Issue(s): Face Covering

HB 1226: New criminal penalties for masked protesters

Would create a new criminal offense that could cover peaceful protesters who choose to wear a mask. The bill would make it a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and $3,000, to wear a mask “with intent to conceal the identity” of the wearer while “congregating in a public place with any other individual wearing a mask, hood, or other device that covers, hides, or conceals any portion of the individual’s face.” The bill exempts public gatherings to celebrate “Halloween, a masquerade, or other similar celebration,” but does not include exemptions for masks worn during protests, or for health, religious, or other reasons. As written, the bill could cover a protester wearing a mask to avoid retaliation for their political speech, if there were any other individual in the crowd also wearing a mask—for instance, a medical mask to avoid spreading or contracting a contagious disease.

Full text of bill:
https://ndlegis.gov/assembly/69-2025/regular/bill-overview/bo1226.html?bill_year=2025&bill_number=1226

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Jan 2025; Approved by House 10 February 2025

Issue(s): Face Covering

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

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: #Missouri

HB 355: New penalties for protests near gas and oil #pipelines

Creates new potential penalties for protests near gas and oil pipelines and other "critical infrastructure." The law--which was substituted by a Missouri Senate committee for a House bill on sentencing guidelines--heightens the penalties for trespass occurring on critical infrastructure property. Trespass with intent "to damage, destroy, vandalize, deface, [or] tamper with" a facility or intent to "impede or inhibit the operations" of a facility is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by one year in jail and a $2,000 fine. Protesters seeking to peacefully demonstrate against construction of a new pipeline, for instance, with the intent to disrupt that construction, could be prosecuted under the law. The law also newly criminalizes "damage" to critical infrastructure, broadly defined to include vandalism, and makes it a Class C felony, punishable by 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The law also newly and broadly defines "critical infrastructure" to include oil and gas pipelines, refineries, cell phone towers, and railroad tracks whether operational or under construction.
Full text of bill: https://house.mo.gov/Bill.aspx?bill=HB355&year=2019&code=R

Status: enacted
Introduced 18 Apr 2019; Approved by Senate as amended 17 May 2019; Approved by House 17 May 2019; Signed by Governor Parson on 11 July 2019

Issue(s): Infrastructure, Trespass

HB 1413: Limiting #PublicEmployees' ability to picket

***Note: A Judge of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County found HB 1413 unconstitutional in its entirety and granted a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the law on January 27, 2020. ***

Bars certain public employees from picketing. The law requires that all labor agreements negotiated between a "public body" and a labor organization "shall expressly prohibit all strikes and picketing of any kind." The law further mandates that such agreements provide for the "immediate termination" of "any public employee who...pickets over any personnel matter." "Public body" is broadly defined in the law to include "the state of Missouri, or any officer, agency, department, bureau, division, board or commission of the state, or any other political subdivision or special district of or within the state"; accordingly, the law may apply to many labor agreements. While "picketing" is not defined under the law, Missouri Code elsewhere refers to "picketing or other organized protests" as "constitutionally protected activity," indicating that picketing as used in HB 1413 includes protests and demonstrations unrelated to labor strikes.
Full text of bill: https://house.mo.gov/bill.aspx?bill=HB1413&year=2018&code=R

Status: enacted
Introduced 3 Jan 2018; Approved by House 12 February 2018; approved by Senate 16 May 2018; Signed by Governor Greitens 1 June 2018

HB 601: Heightened penalties for #masked #protesters

Would increase the penalty for any offense if committed by someone wearing a mask or other device that concealed their identity. The bill does not require that someone intended to conceal their identity in order to facilitate a crime. The bill also does not provide exemptions for masks worn for medical or any other purpose, nor does it limit the enhanced penalties to violent crimes. As such, a peaceful protester who committed a nonviolent offense while wearing a mask—whether a medical mask to avoid contagion, a mask to avoid retaliation for their political speech, or a mask worn for any other reason—could face steep penalties. For instance, peaceful demonstrators in Missouri may be charged with “disturbing the peace,” a minor misdemeanor, if they make too much noise or obstruct a sidewalk or road in the course of a protest. Under the bill, a masked protester charged with that offense could face up to one year in jail and $2,000 for the first offense and a felony penalties (up to four years in prison and $10,000) for subsequent offenses.
Full text of bill: https://house.mo.gov/Bill.aspx?bill=HB601&year=2025&code=R

Status: pending
Introduced 8 Jan 2025.
Issue(s): Face Covering

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

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

SB 2343: Requiring state #permission for protests near statehouse and other state government buildings

The law requires that organizers obtain written permission from state law enforcement before holding a protest near the Mississippi #statehouse or other state government buildings. As a result, state officials will be able to approve or disallow protests at the statehouse, including rallies and demonstrations against the actions of state officials. The permit requirement broadly applies to protests near state-owned buildings or any other property that is “occupied by any [state] official” or entity. It applies to protests on the streets and sidewalks “immediately adjacent” to such locations, as well as those that can be “reasonably be expected to block, impede, or otherwise hinder” access to such locations. The process for obtaining a permit is not stated in the law, but is to be determined by rules issued by the state law enforcement agency. Organizers of protests in Jackson, Mississippi, where the statehouse and most state government buildings are located, must already obtain a municipal permit to hold most protests; the law creates an additional state permitting requirement. The law also expands the jurisdiction of state law enforcement over infractions that may occur during nonviolent protests throughout the capitol city of Jackson: The law authorizes state police to make arrests for violations not only of state law, but of Jackson city ordinances “related to disturbance of the public peace” that may occur.
Full text of bill: https://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/2023/pdf/history/SB/SB2343.xml

Status: enacted
Introduced 16 Jan 2023; Approved by the Senate 8 February; Approved by the House 8 March; Signed by Governor Reeves 21 April 2023.

HB 1243: New Penalties for Protests Near Critical Infrastructure

Creates new potential penalties for protests near oil or gas pipelines and other infrastructure facilities, including those under construction. The law establishes two new offenses: "critical infrastructure trespass," and "impeding critical infrastructure." Critical infrastructure trespass is defined in the law as knowingly entering onto infrastructure property without authorization or not leaving once notified to depart; the offense is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of $1,000. "Impeding" critical infrastructure is defined to include "preventing legal access to" a critical infrastructure property or construction site. Under the law, such impediment is punishable by 7 years in prison and a $10,000 fine if the impediment results in $1,000 worth of damage or economic loss. If the damage or loss is less than $1,000, the offense is punishable by six months' imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. The law also provides that an organization "that aids, abets, solicits, compensates, hires, conspires with, commands or procures" someone to impede critical infrastructure is subject to a $100,000 fine and liable for a civil action by the infrastructure facility. "Critical infrastructure facility" is broadly defined and among many other things includes oil and gas #pipelines, refineries, water treatment plants, cell phone towers, and railroad tracks-as well as "[a]ny site where the construction or improvement of any [referenced] facility... is ongoing."
Full text of bill: https://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/2020/pdf/history/HB/HB1243.xml

Status: enacted.
Introduced 19 Feb 2020; Approved by House 4 March 2020; Approved by Senate 15 June 2020; Signed by Governor 25 June 2020.
Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure, Trespass

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