What's ahead for protesters in the coming months? Planning ahead for pushback from the State, part 1

Source: unknown 

Ahead of larger protests and more people taking to the streets, it might be worthwhile to be aware of what the regime is attempting to do now to breach the right to peaceful assembly and silence voices. We aren’t at the point where the military is turned on crowds, but be aware that is a big part of the authoritarians playbook. 

First, there will be draconian legislative measures. As you may assume, many such measures are before different legislatures in conservative states. Concurrently, the federal government is considering several ways to make protesting illegal. Let’s take a look.

Cynics and the chronically apathetic contend that protests don’t do anything. History proves this to be a fallacy and you have to ask, if protests don’t do anything, why has there been across the history of this country, legislation to restrict the right to peacefully assemble, to rally, to march, to protest? Only a fool would believe that the measures instituted during GW Bush’s administration to develop “free speech zones” was motivated by a desire for public safety.

Of course, the media has a huge hand in this; numbers of protesters go underreported when a protest is covered at all, and it’s been my experience that national news outlets seem to afford as much airtime to counter-protesters - whose numbers are often tiny - as to the supporters of the main protest. In other words, containment from by the state, minimization by the media.

Rebecca Solnit is correct when she writes that “protest shapes the world.” (1) She writes that the effects of protests may not always be direct (as in the tanking of Tesla’s profits) but that they “influence public opinion, make exploitation and destruction and their perpetrators more visible, shift what’s considered acceptable and possible, set new norms or deligitimise old ones.” (2)

The US Protest Law Tracker follows state and federal legislation introduced since January 2017 and it’s an eye-opener. To date, since then, 456 states have considered some form of anti-protest legislation, 349 bills have been submitted at the state and federal levels, 51 have been enacted, and there are currently 41 pending. I highly recommend going to incl.org to follow along and do your own research.

In February of this year, Reps. Oliverson, Little,  and Louderback introduced HB 3061, Heightened penalties for masked protesters and in March, Senator Hughes authored SB 2876: Heightened penalties for protesters who conceal their identity. Both of these are presented under the guise of “public safety”, but these are just measures to a) cast a pall over free expression, b) likely make it easier to utilize facial recognition and track attendees, and c) and of course, an excuse to crack down on protests should these laws be breached. 

People wear masks for several reasons; to avoid repercussions against themselves or their families, as a form of expression (for example, a Guy Fawkes mask, etc.), or for health reasons. If you are immunocompromised, you should not be denied your right to protest because of exposure to possible illness among a crowd. 

In the past six months, seven federal bills have been introduced and are pending and 30 at state levels. I’ll list them below and you can get an idea of what the landscape looks like. Afterward, I’ll drill down into earlier legislation and try to present a mid-level view of what has been enacted, and what’s likely to pass. 

Before we begin, bear in mimd that legislation is only the first part. Given the language issuing from the Regime occupying the White House, it is entirely possible, if not probable, that law enforcement at the state and local levels may be called upon to act more aggressively toward protests as numbers of protests grow and numbers of attendance grow.

At the federal level:

HB 2272: Blocking financial aid to students who commit a “riot”-related offense; status: pending. Introduced 21 March.

HB 2273: Providing for visa revocation and deportation of noncitizens who commit a “riot”-related offense. Status: pending. Introduced 21 March.

S 1017: New federal criminal penalties for protests near pipelines. Status: pending. Introduced 13 March.

S 982: Potential penalties for universities on protest policies. Status:  pending. Introduced 12 March.

HR 2065: Harsh penalties for protesters who conceal their identity. Status: pending. Introduced 11 March.

S 937: Barring student protesters from federal loans and load forgiveness. Status: pending. Introduced: 11 March.

HR 1057: Penalties for protesters on interstate highways. Status: pending. Introduced: 6 February.

These bills would penalize universities, students, and the general public in several different ways. Threats of heavy fines and lengthy prison sentences, having federal funding removed from an institution, rescinding debt forgiveness (which at present, may be moot with the Regime’s rolling back of the Biden Administration’s student debt forgiveness legislation), removal of federal student loans, and more. The definitions of the various offenses are ill-defined, from “riot” to a broader term like “any offense” which could include being arrested for failing to disperse if the protester isn’t moving fast enough or with the word “disguise” being used in the face-covering bills being ill-defined likely including any face-covering. The pipeline bill does not define “disrupt”, thus, even a peaceful protest deemed in too close proximity to a pipeline could be at risk of arrest/litigation. “The underlying law provides that any ‘attempt’ or ‘conspiracy’ to commit the offense would be punished the same as the actual commission.’” (3)

By state:

Alabama

SB 247: New penalties for street protesters. Status: pending. Introduced 18 March.

HB 412: Felony penalties for protesters near gas and oil pipelines. Status: pending. Introduced: 6 March.

Alaska

HB 71/SB 74: New penalties for protesting without a permit. Status: pending. Introduced: 27 January.

Arizona

HB 2880: Banning protest encampments on campus. Status: pending. Introduced: 12 February. Approved House 3 March. Approved Senate: 30 April.

Georgia

Stripping financial aid from student protesters. Status: pending. Introduced: 24 February.

Idaho

HB 125: Heightened penalties for “riot”. Status: defeated/expired (on the US Law Tracker, but it looks to me like the legislation passed.). Introduced: 4 February 2023. Approved by House: 17 February 2025. "Title approved - to Senate.” (4)

Illinois

HB 2357: New penalties for protesters that block traffic. Status: pending. Introduced: 4 February.

HB 1480: new penalties for protests near critical infrastructure. Status:  pending. Introduced: 21 January.

Iowa

HF 952: Requiring state permission for protests in the capitol and on capitol grounds. Status: pending. Introduced: 12 March.

Kentucky

HB 399: New penalties for protesters at the capitol. Status: enacted. Introduced: 5 February. Approved by House: 7 March. Approved by Senate: 13 March. Vetoed by Governor Beshearr: 25 March. Veto overridden 27 March.

Minnesota

SF 1501: Heightened penalties for protesters who block traffic. Status: pending. Introduced: 17 February.

SF 1362: New penalties for pipeline protesters and supporters, and protesters who block traffic. Status: pending. Introduced: 13 February.

HF 329/SF 728: Heightened penalties for protesters who block traffic. Status: pending. Introduced: 13 February.

HF 367/SF 180: New civil liability for street protesters. Status: pending. Introduced: 13 February. 

SF 708: Barring public benefits for protest-related offenses. Status:  pending. Introduced: 27 January.

SF 702/HF2808: New civil immunity for drivers who hit protesters. Status: pending. Introduced: 27 January.

New York

S 6746: New penalties for protesters who wear a mask. Status: pending. Introduced: 21 March.

S 5911: Heightened penalties for riot and incitement to riot. Status: pending. Introduced: 2 March.

North Carolina

SB 484: Enabling companies and other employees to sue protesters. Status: pending. Introduced: 25 March.

Ohio

SB 53: New civil cause off action against protesters and supporters. Status: pending. Introduced:  28 January.

Oklahoma

SB 743: Ban. On protests that disturb worshippers. Status: pending. Introduced: 25 March. Approved by Senate: 27 March.

SB 481: Restrictions on public employees ability to protest. Status: pending. Introduced: 25 February.

Pennsylvania

SB 683: New penalties for protests near pipelines and other infrastructure. Status: pending. Introduced: 28 April.

Tennessee

SB 672/HB 729: Felony penalties for blocking traffic or pedestrians. Status: pending. Introduced: 31 January.

Texas

SB 2876: Heightened penalties for protesters who conceal their identity. Status: pending. Introduced: 14 March.

HB 3061: Heightened penalties for masked protesters. Status: pending. Introduced: 19 February.

West Virginia

SB 713: Enabling civil lawsuits against protesters for “picketing’. Status: pending. Introduced: 6 March.

HB 3135: New penalties for protesters who block streets and sidewalks. Status: pending. Introduced: 4 March.

HB 2757:  Potential “terrorism” charges for nonviolent protesters. Status: pending. Introduced: 21 February.

Wisconsin

AB 88: Broad. New definition of “riot” and related felony offenses and civil liability. Status: pending. Introduced: 28 February.(5)

I suggest that you go back and read each of these bills. Terms are ill-defined or left vague and this is by design. Asking why is rhetorical. State legislatures, particularly Republican-led ones, are taking their cues from the Occupier. 

We are already deep in the midst of a constitutional crisis where due process has flown out the window, court rulings are being ignored, judges targeted, and the Executive Branch is ruling by fiat aka executive order without Congressional oversight, let alone approval.

Andy Rose’s article “Can protesting in the US be ‘illegal’?" Trump’s vague warning raises constitutional questions” draws direct lines between the Occupier’s tweets/edicts and the legislation listed above. Quoted in the article, Linda McMahon, Secretary of Education, says, “This is not a freedom of speech issue…This is a safety and civil rights issue.” (5) This is utter bullshit, of course. As Rose points out, because the Occupier hasn’t defined what he means by “illegal protests”, “the ambiguity of the president’s warning could pave the way for lawsuits. It could also be damaging, critics say, if it has the effect of stifling freedom of speech, among the nation’s most fundamental and heralded rights.”(6)

Again, that’s the idea. The Regime, like all dictatorships, fears transparency and emphatically does not want the public to have a say in their circumstances. Moreover, we as a nation have taken for granted how fragile the first amendment right really is. Founded on the idea that “all men are created equal” has led to an evolution of whose voice gets heard as over the past 250 years. However, protest has - as much as it is a seminal feature of the founding of the republic - often been fraught with violent state response at different points. As it stands currently, there is a sense that the Regime is spoiling for a fight.

As the crowds become larger and rallies more numerous, the regime is likely to marshal its forces, both legally and as seems likely, militarily. State troopers in Selma, the National Guard at Kent State, are only two instances of the state exercising force to suppress protest. In neither circumstance were the protesters violent or rioting. They sure weren’t armed. But in those instances, we see the twin engines of institutional racism and the war machine in action. 

Can it happen again? The question is when will it? The Constitution was more firmly in place a half-centtury ago. It is hanging in near-tatters today. To claim otherwise is to be willfully blind.

St. Louis Washington Law School professor Gregory notes that “The right to protest as a manifestation of the rights of free speech and peaceable assembly is a fragile thing, and I think it always has been a fragile thing.” (7) He points to Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus protections for “disloyal persons” during the Civil War, the Sedition Act of 1918, the violent suppression of coal miners in Kentucky by local law enforcement and private security operators in 1931, as well as Selma in 1965, as examples. 

Again, though, I have to say that as awful and ugly as the precedents are, the country is in a much darker place as we have now a government of officials who are flaunting almost every dimension of ethics and ignoring each check, each balance. While it is true that there has been push-back from judiciaries across the country and even from SCOTUS in a couple of instances to many people’s surprise, so much other malfeasance has been perpetrated and so many institutions attacked, if not gutted, that it is difficult to see what backlash will look like if - or when - our Selma or Kent State, breaks out.

Constitutional law professor at John. Jay College of Criminal. Justice in New York Goria J. Browne-Marshall references Dr. Martin Luther. King, jr.: “we have to protest for the right to protest.”(8)

All of this said, Prof. Magarian points out that “There are limits to the right of peaceable assembly, but it’s a strong constitutional protection.” He also adds that “the idea of an ‘illegal protest’ is really legally incoherent.” (9) However, what’s at issue or is likely to be at issue, is if such incoherent terminology is adopted by MAGA-led judiciaries and used to draft legislation. Indeed, many of the bills on dockets that I list above are loaded with dodgy, suspect notions of what constitutes “illegality” in their specific legislative contexts. I hasten to add that for more than two decades, our language and polity have been assailed by ideas of a “post-truth” era, of “alternative facts”, and “fake news”. We have seen how benign terms like “woke” and “antifa” have been weaponized by the right to mean ideas to fear and to fight. The idea of being “antifascist” seems to rile up thee conservatives when its called “antifa” and how they double-down on their willful ignorance to claim that there is some overarching cabal called “Antifa” or that being “woke” to racism and economic and societal inequity is bad. Thus, I wouldn’t put a lot of hope on the idea that a legally incoherent idea cannot make its way into a legislature as an epistemic force.

Moreover, as Browne-Marshall points out, “Protest could be anything that requires standing up to people…It could be Rosa Parks sitting down. It could be (Colin) Kaepernick taking a knee.” (10)

Rose cites Trump’s “expressed animus toward protesters” when he suggested shooting them in his first term. He was referring to opening fire on protesters in Lafayette Park, but to be sure, those protesters were “cleared from the square with ‘less-lethal munitions’” (11) 

I have an issue when someone like constitutional law professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston Josh Blackman says that a blanket warning about “illegal protests” “may not reflect an attempt to redefine the First Amendment”. (12) When he says, “We don’t exactly know how this will shake out”, I would say, “don’t wait to find out.” This is why protests need to keep going, why public pressure needs to be applied to our elected leaders, why - if the people don’t show up - those elected reps are going to redefine “free speech” according to the whims of the Executive Branch. 

Consider that “60 colleges and universities are under investigation for ‘reading to antisemitic harassment and discrimination.’”(13) But it is not educational institutions only that are subject to blowback from the Regime. Rose points to the censure of Al Green or the Republicans engaging in payback for Democrats having removed Republicans from committees under the previous administration. Never mind that the Republicans removed are adult toddlers and obstructionists, of course, but we also have to be aware that ‘free speech” includes that which we do not want to hear or agree with. Ironically, it could be this that might provide the groundwork for more vigorously protecting the rights to protest.

My thinking is that there is a slim chance - though it hasn’t always played out this way - that if enough right-wing protesters suffered the same fates as their left-leaning colleagues, that might well lead to a shoring up of the First Amendment and a renewed scrutiny of “legal incoherence.” I have to confess, though, that I’m not confident that will. happen. 

There are a couple of major reasons why I’m not too hopeful about some kind of parity between, say MAGA people who do not have “buyers remorse”, joining in and why it feels more likely that we are headed into more contentious legal waters.

Ella Fassler, writing for Truthout, noted that from the time she wrote the article in June 2021 going back to the “George Floyd Rebellion”, more than 100 anti-protest bills had been introduced. She points out that “Rather than address the onslaught of police violence against Black people or catastrophic environmental degradation, Republican states politicians continue to attack the people rising up against those systemic injustices. As many as 225 anti-protest bills have been introduced in 45 states since 2016 according to the International Center for Non-Profit law U.S. Protest Law Tracker. More than 100 have been introduced since Black liberation demonstrators took to the. Streets in June 2020. Thirty-four such bills have been enacted since 2016.” (14)

I quote Fassler at length to give some idea of recent legislative history. It is also instructive to recognize that there was no downturn in such legislation under Biden. The difference, of course, is that with the current Occupier in office and the Republican majority in the House and enough rightwing judges, it’s not too difficult to see how this is could eventually grow to a fever pitch. The added element that Rose does not bring up or pursue in his piece is how often this type of legislation is “backed by organizations affiliated with police unions” and that “the enacted laws encompass a wide range of punitive tactics.” (15)

Fassler fixes on what I have called the vague definitions of “riot” or “offense”. Her observation is likely more accurate: “Some broadenthe definition of ‘rioting” and ‘aggravated riot’ to allow for dragnet arrests — in which police arrest people for being in the vicinity of the alleged crime — and felongy charges with lengthy prison sentences.”(16) Emphasis mine, by the way. She also quotes Traci Yoder, National Lawyers Guild Director of Research and Education who described the anti-protest laws as “part of a larger trend of conservative, right-wing efforts at the state level to counter the goals fo social movements.” Four years ago, when Fassler wrote this, “Yoder said repressive voting rights bills, anti-trans bills and anti-abortion bills are being introduced in the same vein.” (17)

This is all a long way of pointing out that the right has again played a long game. Much of these state’s legislation was enacted before the Occupier’s second term. The overarching aim is to render inert the civic participation and engagement in social justice. There is the repeated lie that many of us - if not all? - are “paid protesters”. If that is true, I would like to get a check to donate to some worthy causes, but in the meantime, I am happy to protest for free.

If you go to the U.S. Protest Law tracker, you will likely notice that most of these bills do not make it into law. As Yoder points out, “Even if many of these bills do not pass, they create an atmosphere of repression and fear. The small percentage that are successful set a dangerous precedent by slowly chipping away at civil, human, and constitutional rights.” (18) Fassler goes onto give examples of blowback from even successful results from protests. She also notes how Oklahoma passed a law that “effectively sanctions extrajudicial violence against demonstrators by providing civil and criminal immunity to drivers who “unintentionally” injure or kill protesters. See Missouri’s SF 702/HF2808: New civil immunity for drivers who hit protesters. Status: pending. Introduced: 27 January of this year. Fassler also points out that while many of these bills were authored by Republicans, she cites examples of Democratic leaders introducing or co-sponsoring similar legislation. 

Her quick overview of similar legislation or draconian measures levied by the state at different times in US history is helpful to contextualize this current moment, and I’m grateful she gave the final word to Yoder: “When a critical mass goes out into the streets to protest in force, the point is to bring attention serious structural problems not being addressed through established mechanism. Instead of expending so much effort silencing and punishing these movements, lawmakers should be listening to their message and trying to understand and address their demands.” (19) Unfortunately, that’s not how power works in this country.  Our leaders have rarely showed that kind of insight or courage to stand with the oppressed, much less actually attend to their demands, unless forced to do so. You could go back to Lincoln and how much Frederick Douglass had to bend his ear, as an example.

Returning to the point that even if most of these bills aren’t enacted, it’s a good idea to not put too much faith in the current regime upholding the Constitution in this matter. Yoder herself, in 2017, when addressing anti-protest legislation then, noted that “Many of these bills are so obviously unconstitutional, or based on such false premises that they are unlikely to pass. Indeed, many have failed. Others. Have been sent back to committees for revisions to make the bills more palatable to lawmakers and the general public.” But she adds, “As we saw from the AETA/ALEC example, we should expect to see parts of these bills introduced elsewhere should they fail in their current form.” (20)

And this is what has pretty much transpired.

I wanted to write this as a relatively full context-driven piece about what protesters are up against now and what we could potentially encounter in another few months time. People are very nice and have asked me to be careful and so on, but right now, that is not quite the issue. It may very well be sooner than later and at that point, everyone is going to need to make decisions based on their own safety and how far they feel they can go, should rallies and marches be broken up by police or military personnel responding to orders. 

An additional issue in this that differentiates the current moment from antecedents is ICE and the coordination of other federal agencies with local law enforcement. In January, Houston Mayor John Whitmire denied that HPD was working with ICE (21), but this has proven to be patently false. (22)

Additionally, with the Occupier’s edict of going after “homegrowns” - and your author is likely to be considered one - we go into the extraordinary rendition field of disappearance to countries like El Salvador or to newer facilities being built by private prison companies. At this point, it might be premature to second-guess what the Regime is going to do specifically, but it may not be a bad idea to prepare for some worst-case scenarios.

I will begin with ICE sightings, but you could apply this to any police presence.

First, situational awareness: how large a presence is it? How many individuals and in what formation? Vehicles: do you see a significant number of vans/wagons? Do not assume that unmarked vehicles aren’t part of the package.

Note the time that Police/ICE/other agencies appeared on the scene. 

What did they do? What tools/weapons did they employ? How many people did they detain? Did they take people away? This last might be moot; hopefully, if you see this kind of thing happening, you have found a safe place or - and this is worst-case scenario - you have been caught up in a dragnet.

What to do. 

If it is your municipal or state police

Source: rocketlawyer.com

Before you go to your protest: 

share the time and place with a trusted family member, friend or neighbor.

Memorize or write down the phone number (preferably on your arm, in permanent ink) of an attorney, legal defense organization, or other contact that could assist you fi you are arrested.

Write your name and number on any valuable items you like to have returned in case they are confiscated.

Be sure to carry a government-issued ID, as it will allow you to get out of jail more quickly.

Prepare a contingency plan for minor children, pets, or other responsibilities in case you are unable to care for them due to an arrest.

if you are approached by the police:

Remain calm. This is in your best interest. 

Police in many states have the right to ask your name; but you do not have to answer questions about your immigration status, where you live, or where you are going.

If you wish to invoke your right to remain silent, you must say so out loud to the officer(s).

You may ask them what crime you are accused of committing. After they speak with you, ask if you are free to go.

If so, you may rejoin the protest or go your own way.

The police cannot search you without a warrant; but they may pat you down (through your clothes), if they have reason to believe you have a weapon.

If they say you are NOT free to go and detain you again, stay calm and keep your safety in mind.

The right to remain silent may be to your benefit. Resisting arrest (even if you feel it is unlawful) may lead to unsafe outcomes and is a crime in many places.

If you are arrested:

They may read you your Miranda rights, but not right away. This is important. It is not necessary for them to do so right away. What is important is to remember and understand that anything you say while detained before you are read your rights may not be used against you. Or put another way, nothing you say can be used against you until you are read your rights.

Upon arrest, you will be put in handcuffs or zip-tied and searched on the spot. Then, you will be put in a patrol car or a larger vehicle with other arrestees. 

Once you are transported to a local jail, you will be processed (ID’d, fingerprinted, photographed, and issued one or more citations). The citation will indicate your court date.

Expect to be in custody for several hours, at least. You may be held in jail overnight or even of the weekend (before bail is set). You may be released on your recognizance — meaning that you’ve signed a promise to appear at your court hearing — or you may be released without charges.

While in jail after an arrest:

Despite the temptation to talk to other inmates or officers, it is in your best interest to exercise your right to remain silent until you meet with your attorney. 

You want to ensure that you have legal representation — keep in mind that the police may not listen to your call with legal counsel. 

If you have not been given the opportunity to do so, clearly state your intention to speak with a lawyer.

Review the course of events and consider any evidence that might support your position.

Did the police use excessive force and do you have witnesses?

If they were dispersing the crowd for legitimate reasons, were you given an adequate opportunity to leave the scene of the protest?

Arraignment and trial:

This depends. The majority of protesters who are arrested are released with misdemeanor charges and are not arraigned. Arraignment is the court procedure where. You are officially charged and enter a plea. If a court date for your arraignment is set and you enter a plea of “not guilty”, then your trial will begin in a matter of weeks or even months.

After release:

If you have reason to believe the police acted unlawfully, such as using excessive force, planting evidence, or breaking up a peaceful protest under a false pretext, then you will want to convey this information to your attorney and file an official complaint with the corresponding police agency.

You will also want to contact potential witnesses who can corroborate your story and gather any relevant photographic or physical evidence that supports your case. If you have been injured by the police, take pictures of those injuries and if they are serious, seek medical attention. This will help you document any alleged abuses, which should strengthen your case.(23)

Know your rights at a protest:

Source: ACLU.org

Your rights are strongest in “traditional public forums”: streets, sidewalks, and parks. You also likely have the right to speak out oh other public property, like plazas in front of public buildings, as long as you are not blocking access to the government building or interfering with purposes the property was designed for.

Private property owners can set rules for speech on their property. The government may not restrict your speech if it is taking place on your own property or with the consent of the property owner.

Counterprotesters also have free speech rights. Police must treat protesters and counterprotesters equally. Police are permitted to keep antagonistic groups separated but should allow them to be within sight and sound of one another.

When you are lawfully present in any public space, you have the right to photograph anything in plain view, including federal buildings and the police. On private property, the owner may set the rules related to photography or video.

You do not need a permit to march in the streets or on sidewalks, as long as marchers do not obstruct car or pedestrian traffic. If you do not have a permit, place officers can ask you to move the side of a street or sidewalk to let others pass or for safety reasons.

I recommend going to the sources and I most highly recommend talking to a lawyer to get the best/last word on your rights as a protest participant.(24)

For now, these are reasonable “general operating principles” regarding participation in, and legal rights of, protesting. However, as I mentioned above, there is an additional dimension to protesting in the U.S. of 2025. 

ICE is the equivalent to the Reich’s SS or Gestapo. They do not identify themselves before arresting or simply assaulting people or invading homes. They act more like a paramilitary than any official arm of law enforcement and if they are supposed to follow protocols of other law enforcement agencies, that remains to be seen.

Consequently, the only advice I can find is to keep calm, remain silent, and ask for an attorney. 

What happens if ICE picks you up?

The best I can find is this Reddit thread about a "dead man’s switch.” Source: r/50501 from Redditor Plaid_Piper. I am going to let you do the legwork because I think you will really want to investigate this further. There are a number of platforms and apps that can mitigate some of the nightmare situations and I want list some tools you can use and some tech advice that may come in useful.

Whether or not you are in the Houston area, and someone you know has been taken, you can call Houston Immigration Legal Services Collaborative at 1-833-468-4664. 

For thorough, comprehensive resources for wherever you are, immigrantjustice.org should be bookmarked. This is the website of the National Immigrant Justice Center. They are replete with details about your rights and who to call if someone you know has been taken by ICE.

United States Disappeared Tracker by Danielle Harlow is a data driven Tableau map of the number of persons who have been arrested/deported/disappeared by ICE or who have died in ICE custody, and so on. All data is sourced from publicly available records.

Upon reviewing this, I’m not completely satisfied. There is more to go into about our legal rights if detained by ICE and I want to provide more information and resources pertaining to that despicable agency. Yes, I do write with a bias.

Consider this one part of a two-part piece.

Footnotes.

1. Solnit.
2. Ibid.
3. US Anti-Protest Law tracker.
4. Idaho Legislature.
5. Harlow.
6. Rose.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
15. Fassler.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20. Yoder
21. DeGrood.
22. Trimmer.
23. Rocket Lawyer.
24. ACLU.
25. R/50501.

(RE)Sources/Further Reading

ACLU. “KNOW YOUR RIGHTS/Protesters Rights”. ACLU.org. Retrieved May 5, 2025. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights#im-attending-a-protest.

DeGrood, Matt. “Exclusive: Houston police called ICE on woman reporting crash, despite claims they aren't cooperating”. Houston Chronicle. April 13, 2025.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/article/hpd-police-ice-cooperation-20264558.php

Fassler, Ella. “Over 100 Anti-Protest Bills Have Been Introduced Since George Floyd Rebellion”. Truthout. June 19, 2021. Retrieved May 1, 2025. https://truthout.org/articles/over-100-anti-protest-bills-have-been-introduced-since-george-floyd-rebellion/.

Harlow, Danielle."United States Disappeared Tracker”. Retrieved May 1, 2025. 

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/danielleharlow/viz/UnitedStatesDisappearedTracker/Map.   

Houston Immigration Legal Services Collaborative. houstonimmigration.org.1-833-468-4664.

Humphrey, Spencer. “‘We’re citizens!’: Oklahoma City family traumatized after ICE raids home, but they weren’t suspects”. KFOR. April 29, 2025. Retrieved May 1, 2025.

https://kfor.com/news/local/were-citizens-oklahoma-city-family-traumatized-after-ice-raids-home-but-they-werent-suspects/

Lakhani, Nina. “US Intensifies Crackdown on Peaceful Protest Under Trump”. Port side. April 9, 2025. Retrieved May 1, 2025. https://portside.org/2025-04-09/us-intensifies-crackdown-peaceful-protest-under-trump.

National Immigrant Justice Center. Immigrantjustice.org

R/50501/Plaid_Piper. “For those of you that are concerned you might be “Disappeared””. Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/50501/comments/1jo72xt/for_those_of_you_that_are_concerned_you_might_be/.

RocketLawyer. “What to Do if You or a Loved One is Arrested for Protesting”. Rockerlawyer.com. Retrieved May 5, 2025. https://www.rocketlawyer.com/family-and-personal/general-legal-matters/lawsuits-and-dispute-resolution/legal-guide/what-to-do-if-you-or-a-loved-one-is-arrested-for-protesting.

Rose, Andy. “Can protesting in the US be ‘illegal’? Trump’s vague warning raises constitutional questions”. CNN.com. March 13, 2025. Retrieved March 14, 2025. https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/13/us/protests-legal-illegal-constitution-trump/index.html

Solnit, Rebecca. “Protest shapes the world’: Rebecca Solnit on the fight back against Trump”. The Guardian. May 3, 2025. Retrieved May 3, 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/03/protest-can-shape-the-world-rebecca-solnit-on-the-fight-back-against-trump.

Treisman, Rachel. “Lawmakers demand answers after a Haitian woman dies at an ICE detention center”. NPR. May 1, 2025. Retrieved same day. https://www.npr.org/2025/05/01/nx-s1-5383108/haitian-woman-death-ice-detention.

Trimmer, Joseph. “Houston Mayor Says Police Focus on Local Issues, Not ICE Deportations”. Texas Scorecard. January 31, 2025. Retrieved May 5, 2025.

https://texasscorecard.com/local/houston-mayor-says-police-focus-on-local-issues-not-ice-deportations/

US Anti-Protest Law tracker. https://www.icnl.org/usprotestlawtracker/

Yoder, Traci. “New Anti-Protesting Legislation: A Deeper Look”. National Lawyers Guild. March 2, 2017. Retrieved May 1, 2025. https://www.nlg.org/new-anti-protesting-legislation-a-deeper-look/.