Bill
SR 102
Urges Congress to pass the Safe and Open Streets Act, making it a federal crime to block public roads in ways that affect commerce, deterring disruptive road-blocking protests.
Status and basic info
- Bill type: Senate resolution (memorializing/expressing legislative sentiment; non‑binding)
- Bill number: SR 102
- Subject: Urges U.S. Congress to enact the “Safe and Open Streets Act”
- Introduced: February 13, 2025
- Current procedural status (as supplied): Introduced in the Senate; referred to the Senate Transportation Committee
- Principal sponsors (state-level sponsors listed): Sheikh Rahman, Donzella James, Randal Mangham, Tonya Anderson, Gabbard, Jeremy Stine; cosponsors include Mike Reese and Mark Abraham
Purpose / intent
- The resolution formally urges the United States Congress and the President to enact the “Safe and Open Streets Act” (federal bills cited in the resolution as S.3492 and H.R.6926).
- It frames the Act as a response to a trend of protesters intentionally blocking public roads and highways — citing high‑profile demonstrations (e.g., in New York City and Los Angeles) — and emphasizes harms to commerce, public safety, and emergency response.
Key provisions described by the resolution
- The resolution asks Congress to pass federal legislation that would:
- Make it a federal crime to intentionally obstruct, delay, or otherwise affect commerce (or the movement of goods in commerce) by blocking a public road or highway.
- Criminalize attempts and conspiracies to block public roads in a way that interferes with commerce or the movement of commodities.
- The resolution argues for penalties sufficient to deter the practice and to provide a federal enforcement tool when road‑blocking protests create major disruptions.
Who and what would be affected (if the federal Act were enacted)
- Individuals or groups who intentionally block public roads/highways in a manner the federal statute defines as affecting commerce.
- Motorists, local businesses, and supply chains that rely on unobstructed roadways.
- Emergency responders and public safety operations that could be delayed by blocked roadways.
- Law enforcement agencies (local and federal) who would be called on to enforce the new federal offense; possible intergovernmental coordination issues.
- Potential constitutional implications for protesters — enforcement could raise First Amendment challenges.
Procedural/timeline notes
- SR 102 itself is a state resolution urging federal action; it does not create criminal penalties at the state level.
- The federal bills referenced (S.3492, H.R.6926) would have to be passed by Congress and signed by the President to become law.
- As a resolution, SR 102 typically would request that copies be transmitted to federal leaders and members of Congress (standard practice for memorializing resolutions), but it carries no binding legal effect.
Potential impacts and issues to watch
- Supporters: emphasize protection of commerce, public safety, and the reliability of emergency services; claim federal law is needed when local responses are insufficient.
- Opponents / legal concerns: civil liberties and First Amendment protection for protests; practical and jurisdictional enforcement challenges; the need to define mens rea (intent) and the scope of “affecting commerce” to avoid overbroad application.
- If enacted federally, the statute’s language, enforcement practices, and any judicial review would determine how it affects peaceful versus obstructive demonstrations in practice.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
