To amend title 18, United States Code, to include rioting in the definition of racketeering activity.
- Sponsor
- Rep. Van Duyne, Beth [R-TX-24]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 22, 2025
Bottom line
The bill expands federal racketeering law to include organized rioting, providing federal authorities with a powerful tool for prosecuting individuals and groups involved in repeated acts of civil disorder.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act by adding 'rioting' (as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2101) to the list of predicate offenses that constitute 'racketeering activity.' This expansion would allow federal prosecutors to bring RICO charges against individuals or groups involved in a pattern of rioting, potentially leading to more severe penalties and broader conspiracy charges.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that including rioting under RICO would provide federal law enforcement with a powerful tool to combat organized and sustained acts of civil disorder, deterring individuals and groups who orchestrate or participate in multiple riotous events. They contend it would help dismantle criminal enterprises that exploit or instigate unrest, ensuring greater accountability for those who engage in or facilitate widespread violence and property destruction.
Opponents contend
Opponents may argue that this expansion of RICO could be overbroad, potentially chilling legitimate protest and dissent by labeling organized activism as racketeering. They might express concerns about potential misuse of the statute against political opponents or marginalized groups, leading to disproportionate penalties and federal overreach into matters traditionally handled by state and local authorities.
The bill text is extremely short and can be read in under a minute, but its implications require significant legal and policy consideration.
Section 1.
Inclusion of Rioting as Racketeering Activity
This provision modifies Section 1961(1) of Title 18, United States Code, to add 'section 2101 (relating to riots)' to the list of predicate offenses that constitute 'racketeering activity' under the RICO Act. This means that if individuals or groups engage in a pattern of rioting, they could be charged under RICO, which carries severe penalties, including lengthy prison sentences and forfeiture of assets, in addition to existing state and federal charges for rioting.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is necessary to address instances where rioting is not spontaneous but rather organized or part of a broader criminal enterprise. They believe it will provide a crucial deterrent and enable authorities to target the leadership and funding networks behind destructive civil unrest, which existing laws may not adequately address.
Critics contend
Critics contend that existing laws are sufficient to address rioting and that adding it to RICO could lead to the criminalization of legitimate protest, particularly when demonstrations escalate unexpectedly. They worry about the potential for federal authorities to apply RICO broadly against groups engaged in advocacy, even if only a few individuals within those groups commit acts of violence, thereby chilling free speech and assembly.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire for stronger federal tools to combat organized violence and property destruction with concerns about potential federal overreach and the chilling effect on constitutionally protected rights to assembly and protest.
The bill's entire substance is to incorporate 'section 2101 (relating to riots)' into the definition of racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. 1961(1). Understanding the existing definition of 'riot' in federal law (18 U.S.C. 2101) is crucial to grasp the full scope of this bill.
Section 1.
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid reprinting lengthy statutory definitions within new legislation. It is not intentionally evasive but requires external legal knowledge for full comprehension.
Case for: Proponents would argue that referencing existing law ensures consistency in legal definitions and avoids creating new, potentially conflicting interpretations of 'riot' within federal statutes.
Case against: Opponents might argue that by not explicitly outlining the definition of riot within the bill, it makes the bill's full scope less immediately apparent to the public and legislators who may not be familiar with the specifics of 18 U.S.C. 2101.
Estimated impact: The impact is significant as it leverages an existing, broad definition of riot to trigger the powerful RICO statute, expanding federal jurisdiction over certain acts of civil unrest.