Already this year, lawmakers in Montana, Virginia, and Illinois have introduced bills that would hand corporations and prosecutors new tools to suppress climate activism.
Although proponents frame these bills as public safety measures, there is no evidence that they improve energy reliability or make communities safer. To the contrary, they contain intentionally broad provisions that would make climate advocates, environmental defenders, and landowners vulnerable to felony prosecution for infractions that are historically linked to protest.
In light of Big Oil’s death drive to keep the world hooked on fossil fuels (now with the federal government’s total support), policies that take aim at our right to protest make all of us less safe by undermining the urgent action that is needed to preserve a livable future.
Twenty-three states already have some form of these laws in place.1 Certain components of them pose an obvious threat to climate protest (for example, boosting penalties for simple trespass near fossil fuel infrastructure), but no less dangerous are vague provisions that target “impeding” fossil fuel infrastructure or “causing damages.”
Under some laws, it is unclear whether these provisions could be used to impose draconian penalties upon individuals engaged in peaceful sit-ins or symbolic protest actions such as painting a slogan on a pipeline without damaging its functionality. In recent years, oil and gas companies have sought large monetary damages from activists for alleged costs associated with project delays.2 Moreover, fossil fuel spokespeople and their allies in government routinely frame acts of civil disobedience as violent attacks deserving of deterrence and aggressive retaliation.
Laws with intentionally broad language allow authorities to hang the threat of prosecution over activists’ heads, even if the most extreme charges are not pursued or eventually dropped. Further, they can force individuals and organizations into costly legal battles.
A closer look at the new crop of anti-protest bills below:
- Montana HB 257 would build on the state’s existing anti-protest law by removing the condition that sites classified as “critical infrastructure” be enclosed by a fence or identified by signage. The bill drew support from business groups representing ExxonMobil, Continental Resources, the American Chemistry Council, and other members in a January 27 committee hearing.
- Virginia HB 2215 would make “damaging” certain facilities and equipment a class 3 felony, punishable by 5-20 years in prison. The primary sponsor, VA Rep. Terry Kilgore, is a long-time member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and has accepted more than $380,000 in campaign donations from Dominion Energy over his political career. ALEC, an organization that invites corporate lobbyists to help draft model bills that are promoted with state officials around the country, has played a key role in the spread of anti-protest laws since 2016. Dominion Energy has also lobbied for anti-protest laws, including to explicitly “address civil disobedience towards pipelines,” according to emails obtained by public records request.
- Illinois HB 1480 would create a new felony offense that could cover nonviolent protesters at pipeline and other infrastructure sites with maximum penalties of 3–7 years imprisonment and a $20,000 fine. It would also extend liability to anyone who “conspires with” a person to commit the offense. This last provision is especially pernicious due to the history of prosecutors using scattershot conspiracy allegations to target individuals and organizations with shared political views absent evidence of specific crimes. IL Rep. Patrick Windhorst, the primary sponsor of this bill, is also a member of ALEC.
For more information about these anti-protest bills and related lobbying activity, see here.
Related to the push for fossil fuel anti-protest laws are strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). Greenpeace is facing a costly SLAPP brought by Energy Transfer, the owner of the Dakota Access Pipeline, in North Dakota state court, which goes to trial this month. Further, California Attorney General Rob Banta, the Sierra Club and other environmental groups were sued for defamation by ExxonMobil this January after the defendants sought to hold Exxon legally accountable for its role in the plastics crisis.
1 Twenty-two states were counted for Greenpeace USA’s Dollars vs. Democracy 2023 report. The twenty-third state to pass a fossil fuel anti-protest law was Florida with H 275 / S 340 (2024).
2 For example, see Mountain Valley Pipeline’s lawsuit against climate protesters. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/27/mountain-valley-pipeline-protest
3 For more about this, see “The Fossil Fuel Industry Used ALEC to Spread Fossil Fuel Anti-Protest Laws Across the Country” on page 30 of Dollars vs. Democracy 2023.
