Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This bill amends 18 U.S.C. 1507 by increasing the maximum criminal penalty for obstruction by picketing or parading in or near courthouses or the residences of judges, jurors, witnesses, or other court officers from one year to five years. The text only replaces the term "one year" with "5 years" in the statute's penalty provision and does not change other elements of the offense.
Progressives emphasize free-speech chill and disproportionate punishment
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted substantive change that clearly and specifically amends a single criminal statute to increase the maximum imprisonment term.
This bill amends 18 U.S.C. 1507 by increasing the maximum criminal penalty for obstruction by picketing or parading in or near courthouses or the residences of judges, jurors, witnesses, or other court officers from one year to five years.
The text only replaces the term "one year" with "5 years" in the statute's penalty provision and does not change other elements of the offense.
Very narrow and administrable, but raises constitutional and civil-liberties questions and lacks compromise features, reducing broad support.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted substantive change that clearly and specifically amends a single criminal statute to increase the maximum imprisonment term. The drafting is precise about the textual substitution and the effected provision.
Progressives emphasize free-speech chill and disproportionate punishment
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize free-speech chill and disproportionate punishment
Likely skeptical.
Supporters of civil liberties would acknowledge the safety rationale but worry the five-year maximum substantially raises criminal exposure for protesters.
They will note the bill only changes penalty length, not mens rea or conduct definitions, increasing risk of chilling lawful protest.
Cautiously supportive of strengthening protections for judicial safety but concerned about proportionality and vagueness.
Would favor safeguards—an intent requirement, prosecutorial guidance, or sentencing limits—to avoid chilling legitimate demonstrations.
Generally favorable.
Mainstream conservatives will emphasize protecting judges and deterring intimidation, viewing a stiffer penalty as an appropriate tool to uphold law and order.
They may accept narrow clarifications to protect bona fide peaceful protest but largely support the increased maximum.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Very narrow and administrable, but raises constitutional and civil-liberties questions and lacks compromise features, reducing broad support.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize free-speech chill and disproportionate punishment
Very narrow and administrable, but raises constitutional and civil-liberties questions and lacks compromise features, reducing broad suppor…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted substantive change that clearly and specifically amends a single criminal statute to increase the maximum imprisonment term. The drafting is pr…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.