Removing the Barrier: Using Federal Laws to Deter Criminality in Protests

– Executive Summary

Civil unrest and protests are increasing in the United States.[1] When criminal activities emerge from these incidents, they result in significant societal and economic costs. This thesis focuses on a leading actor—the traveling protestor—whose presence at protests induces criminality and amplifies the damaging effects surrounding the incident. By highlighting three federal statutes, the research explores how the Hobbs Act, Travel Act, and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act could be applied to criminality arising from protests and how they can help diminish such activities. The aim is to identify tools relevant to modern-day national issues that could assist in responding to large-scale destruction and criminality in U.S. cities.

The traveling protestor is a non-local actor, often traveling interstate, whose primary intent at a protest is to commit criminal actions and encourage others to participate in violence and destruction. The thesis examines notable traveling protestors, including Enrique Tarrio from the Proud Boys, Legba Carrefour, an ANTIFA activist, and individual actors such as Matthew Rupert, who do not belong to an ideological group. Following the traveling protestor’s campaigns of destruction during nationally known protest incidents; the thesis illustrates the after-effects of large-scale criminality requiring multi-state assistance, making this a national problem worthy of federal attention. The impact of traveling protestors, combined with the violence, property damage, and economic disruption they cause, significantly affects local economies, public safety, and law enforcement. Without a uniform response from the federal government to assist states with this national problem, societal and economic impacts are exacerbated.

The thesis analyzes protests that experienced large-scale destructive criminality and examines the economic and social effects to illustrate the long-term impact of these incidents. It emphasizes that the First Amendment must provide both the space to voice an opinion and the ability of bystanders to remain unmolested.[2] The case studies include the Ferguson riots (2014), the Minneapolis riots after the murder of George Floyd (2020), and the January 6th Capitol attack (2021). The Ferguson riots resulted in a $5.7 million impact on the local government’s budget and long-term damage to schools and law enforcement.[3] The Minneapolis riots caused over $2 billion in damage nationally, led to business closures, and created a significant population decline in the region.[4] The January 6th Capitol attack incurred $2.7 billion in security upgrades, investigations, and repairs, highlighting the financial burden of such events on taxpayers.[5] The thesis reflects that traveling protestors contribute disproportionately to the destruction in these case studies and undermine the goals of peaceful protests.

The legal analysis of the Hobbs Act, Travel Act, and RICO Act discusses the creation, intent, use, and application of these federal laws toward criminality. The analysis in the thesis of the Hobbs Act determines it can address the interstate commerce disruptions related to criminality in a protest, specifically looting and arson. The Travel Act analysis determines the act applies to the traveling protestor who travels interstate with the intent to commit crimes in and around a protest site. The RICO Act analysis shows its applicability to work against proactive criminal groups who perform criminal actions under the guise of First Amendment activity.

The thesis concludes that the Hobbs, Travel, and RICO Acts apply to the traveling protestor and criminal acts stemming from a protest. The thesis illustrates the national issue of large-scale criminality stemming from protests and recognizes that the federal government has a duty to act on national issues. The thesis recommends creating a uniform response conducted when specific triggers occur, such as large-scale damage assessment or a request for assistance from elected government leaders. This response would assist with prosecutions by the U.S. Attorney’s office by providing personnel for investigative assistance and evidence processing. Finally, the thesis concludes that this is a necessary step to repair the reputation of protests and protect the First Amendment for all U.S. citizens while providing guardrails for using federal prosecution to discourage the overuse of government power. The freedom of speech and the ability to dissent are paramount in the United States, and the country must balance freedom and protection to ensure proper discourse for future generations.


[1] Samuel Brannen, Christian Stirling Haig, and Katherine Schmidt, The Age of Mass Protests: Understanding an Escalating Global Trend (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2020), https://www.csis.org/analysis/age-mass-protests-understanding-escalating-global-trend.

[2] Stephen L. Carter, “Does the First Amendment Protect More Than Free Speech,” William and Mary Law Review 33 (1992): 871–94, https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol33/iss3/6/; Congress, “Amdt1.10.2 Doctrine on Freedoms of Assembly and Petition,” Constitution Annotated, accessed April 10, 2024, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-10-2/ALDE_00000223/; Congress, “Amdt1.7.5.1 Overview of Categorical Approach to Restricting Speech,” Constitution Annotated, accessed April 10, 2024, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-7-5-1/ALDE_00013702/.

[3] Fiona Ortiz, “A Year after Shooting, Ferguson Faces Financial Toll,” Reuters, August 6, 2015, https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0QA2K0/.

[4] Jennifer A. Kingson, “Exclusive: $1 Billion-plus Riot Damage Is Most Expensive in Insurance History,” Axios, September 16, 2020, https://www.axios.com/2020/09/16/riots-cost-property-damage; John Hinderaker, “Four Years after George Floyd , Minneapolis Still Scarred,” New York Post, May 24, 2024, https://nypost.com/2024/05/24/opinion/four-years-after-george-floyd-minneapolis-still-scarred/; Melissa Whitler, “Minneapolis Public Schools Says Fewer Kids Living in the City Has Caused Enrollment to Decline,” Minneapolis Schools Voices, December 7, 2023, https://www.mplsschoolsvoices.news/posts/minneapolis-public-schools-says-fewer-kids-living-in-the-city-has-caused-enrollment-to-decline.

[5] Triana McNeil, Capitol Attack: Federal Agencies Identified Some Threats, but Did Not Fully Process and Share Information Prior to January 6, 2021, GAO-23-106625 (Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office, 2023), https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-106625.

1 thought on “Removing the Barrier: Using Federal Laws to Deter Criminality in Protests”

  1. Mercedes Holmes

    While I agree that looting and arson are not protected free speech, I think attempting to create a RICO action against an entire activist group is inviting the abuse of power to quell dissent. Attempting to sanitize protests and make them into safe, non-disruptive events misses the entire point of a protest. In a country whose core tenet is self-governance, by the people; for the people, if there is a massive public uprising it is a sign that the government has failed to represent the people’s wishes in some fundamental manner. With the exception of January 6th, every uprising has been about the exact same problem: Police brutality; over-policing; militarized police, and the killing of citizens by police. The police are no longer seen as protectors by massive swathes of the population. When the people they are supposed to protect and serve no longer trust them to do so then they become a hostile occupying oppressor of the people not the guardians they were intended to be. That is what the people were protesting in the 1960s. That is what the people were protesting in 1992. That is still what the people are protesting today. Wouldn’t it be simpler and more logical, to stop these costly protests by doing something to correct the unacceptable levels of police violence and corruption that the people have been loudly rejecting via these protests for nearly 70 years now?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top