States adopt rules intended to deter highway protests
Multiple states have taken action this year to address concerns about highway protests. In recent years, at least a half-dozen states have adopted rules to deter the activity.
South Dakota and Tennessee were the first to act to address concern about people blocking busy roadways. The South Dakota law set punishment for standing on a highway to block traffic at one year in jail and/or $2,000 in fines. The Tennessee rule quadrupled the state’s possible fine for obstructing a roadway from $50 to $200.
Texas soon followed suit, enacting a rule that closely resembled the Tennessee revision. Additionally, a Florida law states that protesters who “willfully obstruct the free, convenient and normal use of a public street, highway or road” will face prison time.
Action in Iowa and Oklahoma have since resulted in rules to provide civil immunity in certain instances for drivers of vehicles who injure someone blocking traffic.
Advocates have said that efforts to keep protesters off busy roadways is a commonsense way to help ensure public safety. Critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union, view efforts to punish protesters as violations of the First Amendment.
Louisiana
Two new Louisiana laws cover protests that move onto highways.
HB127 addresses illegal highway protests that block passage for multiple transportation modes.
Louisiana law has stated that blocking passage on a roadway, runway or waterway is punishable by a fine up to $250 and/or six months in jail.
Gov. Jeff Landry has signed into law a bill to increase the fine to $750.
In hopes of discouraging the act, the new law includes punishment for organizers of protests that block or slow down a transportation mode.
Rep. Mike Bayham, R-Chalmette, addressed concern about tamping down the rights of citizens.
“If you have a permitted protest or march that blocks a roadway, the police and emergency services have advanced notice, so they can work around it,” Bayham said while speaking on the House floor.
In contrast, he added, “If you have a sudden incident where you have obstruction, the police cannot plan around that, and that creates chaos and could potentially lead to loss of life.”
His X account includes multiple videos showing highway protests.
Just learned that @LAGovJeffLandry signed HB 127, which increases penalties for protestors who block roadways and also assigns criminal penalties for their coordinators. #DontJustGoAfterThePawns #GoForTheBishopsToo #lagov #lalege
— Mike Bayham (@MikeBayham) June 19, 2024
Another new law gives legal protection to drivers in certain situations related to a highway protest.
HB383 prohibits a person from taking legal action against a driver if that person were blocking a road. The legal protection would be applied when a driver is attempting to “retreat or escape” imminent death or serious bodily injury.”
Sen. Alan Seabaugh, R-Shreveport, said it is simply a self-protection bill.
“HB383 would apply liability protection in the event a driver would come upon an illegal road blockage, and during that road blockage things become violent and dangerous. When that driver believes that his life is in danger, or those of his passengers (are) in danger, and there is no other route of escape, that he can push through the crowd and he would have liability protection in the event that there was an injury while the driver was seeking safety,” Seabaugh testified during a Senate committee hearing.
Sen. Gary Carter, D-New Orleans, shared concern about the actions of truck drivers in such instances.
“I don’t want to give the operator of the vehicle a license to just run pedestrians over or to break the lines,” Carter said. “We’ve seen it in Canada and other states where protesters are blocking trucking lanes. I don’t want to give a free pass to a trucker to just run over a protester.”
Seabaugh affirmed the legislation does not cover someone who is simply aggravated or annoyed.
“This bill does not give the driver permission to push through a crowd because they are annoyed or are late for work,” he said.
Both new laws take effect Aug. 1.
Tennessee
In Tennessee, one new law covers concern about highway protests.
Previously SB2570, the new rule increases the penalty for intentionally obstructing a highway or street. The penalty is increased from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class D felony.
A Class D felony carries a punishment of between two years and 12 years behind bars. A maximum fine of $5,000 also could be assessed by a jury.
Additionally, a person who suffers loss or injury resulting from a road blockage could bring charges to recover compensatory damages.
Sen. Brent Taylor, R-Memphis, highlighted a protest earlier this year that blocked traffic on the Hernando DeSoto Bridge crossing the Mississippi River on Interstate 40 in Memphis.
“Thousands of motorists sat stranded in traffic for two hours while misguided individuals attempted to make a political statement,” Taylor wrote in a letter to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation. “The unlawful commandeering of Memphis bridges is becoming an all-to-common occurrence.”
According to the General Assembly Fiscal Review Committee, there have been an average of 16 Class A misdemeanor convictions for obstructing a highway or other passageway in each of the past five years.
The new law took effect July 1.
Arizona
A pursuit in Arizona to address highway protests was vetoed.
State law classifies blocking traffic to create an “inconvenience or hazard” as a Class 2 misdemeanor punishable by up to four months behind bars and $750 in fines.
The Republican-led statehouse approved legislation that was intended to further deter the illegal activity.
SB1073 stated that a person who intentionally interferes with traffic on a highway, bridge or tunnel or any roadway leading to or from an airport holding at least 25 vehicles or people would face a Class 6 felony charge.
The felony charge could result in fines, probation or up to one year in prison.
Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs said in her veto message it is important to recognize “the sanctity of constitutionally protected rights.”
“It is critical that we approach these matters with precision to avoid infringing on Arizonans’ freedoms,” Hobbs wrote. LL