Dallas Congresswoman Looks to Federally Criminalize Certain Protests

Beth Van Duyne wants to use federal racketeering laws to seize the assets of people and groups that organize or fund protests that turn violent. But a bill the Republican representative for parts of Dallas, Irving and Richardson introduced in Congress to make that possible could infringe on the right of free speech. It is also unlikely to become law and, even if enacted, won’t deter local activists.

That’s the upshot of reactions to Van Duyne’s July proposal in the U.S. House of Representatives for the “The Stop the Financial Underwriting of Nefarious Demonstrations and Extremist Riots (STOP FUNDERs) Act.” The act would let the Justice Department use the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act to charge people and groups with conspiracy, potentially seize their financial assets and also add more jail time and other penalties.

In a statement announcing the bill, Van Duyne cited violence on campuses and in cities and said, “it is obvious there are well-funded, well-outfitted, and highly coordinated efforts to plan and execute violent and potentially deadly missions of chaos and mayhem. This is organized crime, and we need to attack it as such.”

Van Duyne isn’t alone. Several other Republicans in the Texas House delegation, including Troy Nehls of Richmond, joined as co-sponsors of the legislation. Ted Cruz, one of Texas’s two Republican U.S. senators, sponsored identical legislation in the other chamber. His proposal was endorsed by fellow Texan Sen. John Cornyn.

But not everybody thinks it’s a good idea. “If enacted, this proposal could chill peaceful protest, speech, association, and other constitutionally protected activity,” Elly Page, an attorney specializing in First Amendment issues with the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL) in Washington, wrote in an email.

Page said RICO not only carries steep criminal penalties of up to 20 years in prison, but also enables private parties to bring civil actions against offenders. The statute can also be applied to people who committed no crime other than belonging to a group that included some who did commit crimes, she said.

“Fear of getting caught up in serious criminal charges or a costly civil lawsuit could discourage people from exercising their constitutional right to speak out, particularly if they are confused about what kind of activity or relationships might put them at risk,” Page said.

Indivisible Dallas co-founder Samantha Mitchell said by email that the group, which helped organize the June 14 “No Kings” demonstration, isn’t funded by any other group. “Indivisible Dallas is a very grassroots organizing group made entirely of volunteers who use their own personal funds to purchase any supplies, so there's absolutely no funding received from any other organization or person outside of our group,” Mitchell said.

The Republication lawmakers proposing the legislation specifically cite as justification incidents tied to the left. Those include the 2020 unrest after Minneapolis police murdered George Floyd, as well as the violent anti-immigration protests that rocked Los Angeles in 2025.

Supporters of the proposal who don’t serve in Congress are also hopeful it will be used to target groups on the left. The National Right to Work Committee, a nonprofit opposed to making union membership a condition of employment, suggested that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) could be prosecuted under the act.

“The Stop FUNDERs Act would enable the federal government to investigate whether California workers who are forced to pay dues to the SEIU have also been forced to fund riots that destroyed their communities,” Mark Mix, president of the Virginia-based National Right to Work Committee, said in a statement to the Observer.

Although right-wing individuals and organizations support expanding RICO as a way to punish entities on the left, studies of political violence generally find right-wing extremists are more prone to violence than left-wing extremists. Examples include the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, both of which participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.

In addition, President Donald Trump was charged with racketeering under Georgia law in the election interference criminal case in that state. That case is on hold after a court ruling removed the prosecutor from the case.

“That case is worth noting as a reminder that state and federal RICO laws have been used against people and groups across the political spectrum,” Page said. “Expanding racketeering laws by adding “riot” offenses holds perils for speech and activism regardless of ideology.”

Although it has received endorsements from numerous legislators, including several Texas Republicans in the House and Senate, the Stop Funders Act has little chance of becoming law. It’s now in committee, where most bills die. If it does pass out of committee, it must be approved by a general vote. Only then could it be presented to the president for signature.

However, it’s only unlikely, not impossible. At the state level, Oklahoma and Louisiana have enacted similar RICO expansions. Several other states have also considered adding activities such as unlawful assembly to their RICO statutes, according to ICNL.

“The bill is part of a larger trend in proposed and enacted laws that would restrict protest rights not just by targeting people who protest, but people and groups that organize, fund, or otherwise support protests,” Page said. “These kinds of laws pose a real danger to Americans’ First Amendment rights.”

Whatever happens with the Stop Funders Act, Indivisible Dallas has no plans to change what it’s doing, Mitchell said. “We will continue to host nonviolent protests, rallies and meetings which are within the scope of our First Amendment rights,” she said.