Safe and Open Streets Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Tillis, Thomas [R-NC]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 18, 2025
Bottom line
This bill creates a new federal felony offense, punishable by up to five years in prison, for blocking public roads and highways if such actions interfere with interstate commerce.
What it actually does
This bill amends Title 18, Section 1951 of the U.S. Code, to establish a new federal crime for purposely obstructing, delaying, or affecting interstate commerce by blocking a public road or highway. It also removes the phrase "by threats or violence" from the existing statute's heading and related cross-references, broadening the scope of activities that can be prosecuted under this section. Violators could face up to five years in prison, a fine, or both.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue this bill is essential to deter disruptive protests and actions that impede economic activity, endanger public safety by blocking emergency services, and disrupt the free flow of commerce. They contend that existing laws are insufficient to address the growing problem of road blockages and that a federal response is necessary to protect critical infrastructure and ensure public order.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that this bill criminalizes legitimate forms of protest and dissent, potentially chilling First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly. They argue that existing state and local laws are sufficient to address road blockages and that this federal expansion is an unnecessary overreach that could lead to disproportionately harsh penalties for non-violent civil disobedience.
The bill text is very short and easily digestible, allowing for quick comprehension of its core changes.
Section 2(a)
Establishment of Federal Crime for Blocking Public Roads
This provision amends Title 18, Section 1951 of the U.S. Code, to make it a federal crime to intentionally block a public road or highway if that action obstructs, delays, or affects interstate commerce or the movement of goods. Individuals found guilty could face up to five years in prison, a fine, or both. This significantly expands the scope of federal intervention in actions that disrupt transportation infrastructure, moving beyond the original intent of the Hobbs Act which primarily targeted racketeering and extortion.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision provides a necessary federal tool to address increasingly common and disruptive road blockages that harm the economy and endanger public safety by impeding emergency services and commerce. They contend it protects critical infrastructure and ensures the smooth functioning of supply chains.
Critics contend
Critics argue this provision is an overreach of federal power, potentially chilling constitutionally protected rights to protest and assembly. They suggest that existing state and local laws are adequate to manage road blockages and that federalizing such offenses could lead to disproportionate penalties for non-violent civil disobedience.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the right to protest and free expression against the government's interest in maintaining public order, ensuring the free flow of commerce, and protecting critical infrastructure. It also navigates the tension between federal and state jurisdiction over public order offenses.
Conforming amendments remove the phrase "by threats or violence" from the heading of 18 U.S.C. 1951 and related cross-references in Titles 5 and 18 of the U.S. Code.
Section 2(b)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for updating statutory references when a main section is changed. However, its effect is significant in broadening the scope of the underlying statute, which was historically associated with violent crimes.
Case for: Supporters would argue these amendments are necessary to align the existing statute's language with the new, broader offense, ensuring consistency and clarity in federal law. They make the statute applicable to a wider range of activities that interfere with commerce, regardless of whether threats or violence are involved.
Case against: Critics might argue that removing 'by threats or violence' fundamentally alters the original intent and scope of 18 U.S.C. 1951 (the Hobbs Act), which was historically aimed at racketeering and extortion. This change could be seen as expanding federal criminal jurisdiction beyond its traditional bounds without sufficient public debate on the implications of applying a statute designed for violent crimes to non-violent acts.
Estimated impact: Broadens the applicability of 18 U.S.C. 1951 beyond acts involving threats or violence, potentially allowing for prosecution of a wider range of activities that interfere with commerce, including non-violent road blockages.