States Propose Legislation Criminalizing Protests: The source documents behind the news

The Primary Source Crusader (my own mashup of images)

Passions are running high on the topic of protests. Some States have proposed legislation that would criminalize certain protest behaviors, and I was asked for information on exactly what they’re proposing and whether these proposals run afoul of our Constitutional rights.

With my usual caveats for this series,* here’s what I’ve found.

Which states are proposing laws like this?

(I’m going to periodically update the progress of these bills. Last update was 2/17/2017.)


  • SB 17-035 introduced January 13th, 2017 – Deals specifically with protests that involve tampering with oil and gas equipment, making it a class 6 felony. (introduced to the Senate)
  • On the other hand, SB 17-062 introduced January 19th, 2017 – Would prohibit public colleges and universities from restricting student protests, such as designating specific times or places where protests are allowed. (introduced to the Senate)


  • SB 285 introduced January 9th, 2017 –  Defines a “Mass traffic obstruction” as “an incident in which, as part of (or as the result of) a protest, riot, or other assembly, at least ten (10) persons obstruct vehicular traffic in violation of IC 35-44.1-2-13 (obstruction of traffic).” Requires a “responsible public official” to “not later than fifteen (15) minutes after first learning that a mass traffic obstruction exists in the official’s jurisdiction, dispatch all available law enforcement officers to the mass traffic obstruction with directions to use any means necessary to clear the roads of the persons unlawfully obstructing vehicular traffic.” (currently in committee)


  • SF 111 Introduced January 19th, 2017 – Would prohibit people from “intentionally blocking the movement of traffic on certain highways.” (referred to committee)


  • HB 4643 introduced May 26th, 2015 – “House Bill 4643 would amend Public Act 176 of 1939, which created the Employment Relations Commission, to modify the penalties for mass picketing. In addition to the current misdemeanor penalties, a civil fine could be levied and injunctive relief would be available.” (passed House in December 2016, would need to be re-introduced this year and start from the beginning)


  • HF 390 introduced January 23rd, 2017 – Obstructing a roadway would become a crime, and the penalties for obstructing traffic to a highway or airport are increased. (currently in committee)
  • HF 322 introduced January 23rd, 2017 – Governmental units would be allowed to sue to recover costs related to unlawful assemblies and public nuisances. (currently in committee)


  • HB 179 introduced December 8th, 2016 – Makes intentionally concealing one’s identity while engaging in “the crime of unlawful assembly or rioting” a class A misdemeanor. (introduced to House)
  • HB 826 introduced February 2nd, 2017 – Makes intentional blocking of traffic unlawful and designate it a class A misdemeanor. (introduced to the House)

North Carolina?

  • The News & Observer reported that State Senator Dan Bishop plans to introduce a bill making it illegal to “threaten, intimidate, or retaliate against a present or former North Carolina official.” Senator Bishop’s list of introduced bills, however, does not include such a bill, and no relevant bills turn up with a keyword search of current legislation as of 2/16/2017. (not yet introduced)

North Dakota

  • HB 1203 (text of the bill) introduced January 9th, 2017 – Creates a “liability exemption” for “a driver of a motor vehicle who negligently causes injury or death to an individual obstructing vehicular traffic.” It also makes it “unlawful” to walk in the road if there is a sidewalk, on the shoulder if there is no sidewalk, or on the right-hand side of a two-way street. (defeated by the House)


  • HB 668 and SB 944 (text of the bill) introduced February 9th, 2017 – Provides civil immunity for the driver of an automobile who injures a protester who is blocking traffic in a public right-of-way if the driver was exercising due care. (the Senate version is in committee, the House version has been introduced)


  • SB 1055 introduced January 11th, 2017 – Makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to remain at the scene of a “riot or unlawful assembly” after being told to disburse. (defeated by the Senate)

Washington State

  • SB 5009 introduced December 15th, 2016 – Protests that cause “economic disruption” are illegal. “Sec. 1. The legislature recognizes and fully supports the ability of individuals to exercise their rights of free speech, press, and peaceful assembly, and to engage in other constitutionally protected activities. The legislature finds, however, that there is no right to harm another person or prevent 10 another person from exercising his or her rights. … Sec. 2. The prosecuting attorney may file a special allegation when sufficient evidence exists to show that the accused or an accomplice committed the offense to cause an economic disruption.” (currently in committee)

Can they do that?

The question seems to rest on the exact extent of the 1st and 14th Amendments’ protection for peaceful assembly, and what exactly “peaceful” means.

  • The 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from restricting “the right of the people peaceably to assemble.”
  • The 14th Amendment is the “due process” amendment, and it also prohibits States from making “any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” (which includes the rights from the 1st Amendment).

These amendments have been the subject of many a court case, and these have helped define the boundaries of “peaceful” and “assembly” and who is covered. — Extra caveats here that I am not a legal scholar, but following citations by people who are legal scholars (starting with Cornell’s Legal Information Institute and the Library of Congress) points to some of the key cases dealing with the right to peaceful assembly.

  • Whitney v. California 274 U.S. 357 (1927). States can impose restrictions if they are “sufficiently clear and explicit to satisfy the requirement of due process of law.”
  • De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364, 365 (1937). Distinguished between the rights themselves and actions that can result from abuse of those rights. The justices ruled that legislation “can find constitutional justification only by dealing with the abuse. The rights themselves must not be curtailed.”
  • Hague v. CIO 307 U.S. 496 (1939). Justice Stone said, “The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but relative, and must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good order; but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied.”  Even though this was not part of the main ruling
  • Cole v. Arkansas  338 U.S. 345 (1949). Reaffirmed multiple previous rulings that said the right to peaceful assembly does not include the right to interfere with traffic on public streets or otherwise threaten public safety and order.
  • Ward v. Rock Against Racism 491 U.S. 781 (1989). Held that governments can restrict the time, place, and manner of public assembly and speech as long as these restrictions are “justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, . . . are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and . . . leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.”

* Two caveats: 1) Not all knowable things are knowable using official, original published sources, but that’s the limit I’ve set for myself even when that’s inconvenient or frustrating, and 2) I am a librarian trained in tracking down and evaluating sources — nothing more or less than that. I’m doing my best to find the most authoritative version of the primary sources behind the news, and I welcome suggestions and corrections. If you or someone you know would like to add to my collection of primary sources, please let me know.

Leave a Reply