This is the first part of an EarthRights series on criminalization.
Criminalization occurs when powerful politicians and business leaders weaponize the legal system to silence their critics. This can include passing laws that restrict free speech and peaceful protest, imposing harsh penalties for civil disobedience, and using baseless allegations to subject targets with costly and lengthy legal proceedings.
Oil and gas pipeline projects directly affect millions of people across the United States. Currently, 3 million miles of pipelines run through the property of landowners all over the country. Pipeline-related accidents have spilled millions of gallons of oil into the land and waterways of local communities and Indigenous peoples.
Members of these communities work hard to receive stronger safety measures and accountability from the fossil fuel companies building and operating the pipelines. However, these companies often use their control over legislative and regulatory processes to silence those who speak up.
In the United States, criminalization often manifests itself as attempts by the fossil fuel industry to further chip away at the ability of communities to oppose pipeline projects.
This year, both houses of Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate, are considering bills lobbied for by the fossil fuel industry that would create federal penalties for protest action at pipeline sites. These bills aren’t new — similar legislation was introduced in 2023 through the efforts of the fossil fuel industry, while 19 states have already passed state-level legislation limiting protests at pipelines or critical infrastructure sites.
These laws would have the public believe that protests pose a risk to the safety and security of citizens who benefit from these oil and gas pipeline projects. In reality, anti-protest laws pose serious consequences for free speech, the rights of environmental defenders, and the ability of communities to have a voice in decisions that affect their health and safety.
A Distraction From the Real Safety Threat
Legislators and the fossil fuel industry are currently pushing anti-protest pipeline bills in the name of safety. In introducing such legislation, senators have referred to the targets of these laws as “eco-terrorists” and “thugs who attack and try to prevent the flow of energy in our nation.”
While improved pipeline safety is an urgent need in the United States, the real threat doesn’t come from protesters.
As evidence of the threat from protesters, fossil fuel lobbyists have pointed to so-called “valve-turning” incidents. Regardless of what one might think about valve-turning as a protest tactic, there have in fact been only five such incidents in the U.S., with the last one occurring in 2019. In all of these incidents, local law was sufficient to charge those responsible and provide them with a fair trial. None of those incidents resulted in any injuries or deaths.
In contrast, in 2024 alone, there were approximately 1.45 pipeline safety incidents in the United States each day (530 total incidents), while pipeline accidents caused at least 11 fatalities and 26 injuries. These were all safety incidents arising from pipeline operations, not protest actions.
In fact, there is no public documentation showing that the targeted free speech and nonviolent civil disobedience activities at pipeline sites have ever caused any injuries or deaths.
Instead of promoting genuine pipeline safety, this kind of legislation targets free speech and the right to dissent at pipeline sites, attacking the ability of communities to meaningfully oppose and provide input into the development and implementation of pipeline projects that threaten their well-being and livelihoods. It does so by raising risks for individuals involved in protests and by creating disproportionate punishments for nonviolent civil disobedience. Here, we break down the consequences of these efforts to criminalize defenders across the country, and what we can expect to see as a result:
Threat to Free Speech:
Laws targeting non-violent protest actions at pipeline sites can be used to infringe on the right to free speech. For example, one bill currently being considered in the Senate creates a felony charge for “disrupting” pipeline operations or pipeline construction. This vague language could be used to punish a wide range of individuals who express their concerns about pipeline projects, such as landowners opposing eminent domain action in court or concerned citizens asking for additional public hearings and review processes. This legislation would open the door to inappropriate law enforcement action against individuals exercising their First Amendment rights.
Targeting Civil Society Organizations:
These laws pose a threat to individual protesters, but they could also be used to target protest organizers and civil society organizations. Fossil fuel companies have increasingly targeted environmental non-profits and protest organizers with conspiracy allegations, seemingly arguing that people or organizations who participated in a protest should be held accountable for the independent actions of other participants. If laws limiting pipeline protests are put in place, individuals and organizations involved in the protest may be subject to federal conspiracy charges for the actions of other participants outside their control who violated the law.
Disproportionate Punishments as Federal Overreach:
Anti-protest pipeline laws create excessive penalties for nonviolent civil disobedience, with legislation under consideration in Congress creating anywhere between five and 20 years of federal felony imprisonment penalties, along with hefty fines. Actions such as property damage and trespassing are already misdemeanor crimes in every state, but are not typically criminalized at the federal level. The penalties in anti-protest pipeline laws, therefore, are unusual and more severe than is warranted. This may be a violation of the Eighth Amendment, which bars cruel and unusual punishments and has been interpreted to mean that penalties should be proportional to the offenses and that governments should not enact stronger punishments that diverge significantly from longstanding prior practice.
Felony charges for misdemeanor crimes would be a harsh federal overreach, as well as an inappropriate response to nonviolent civil disobedience. Whether one agrees with the aims of particular instances of civil disobedience or not, its status as an intentionally nonviolent means of expression fundamental to upholding democratic values should be taken into account during enforcement and prosecution. Existing state laws, which consider trespassing and property damage as misdemeanors, are better suited to addressing nonviolent civil disobedience at pipeline sites.
Pipeline Threat Posed by Protesters Used as a Distraction:
Anti-protest pipeline legislation accomplishes two fossil fuel industry goals: it narrows the ability of communities to have meaningful input on fossil fuel projects, while using the strawman of protesters to distract from real pipeline safety shortfalls. The industry has repeatedly failed to provide any credible evidence that protests against oil and gas projects have led to injuries or deaths. In contrast, local communities have countless, substantiated reasons to be concerned when a fossil fuel corporation announces that it will build a pipeline through their backyards, water sources, parks, and playgrounds. Pipeline accidents have caused 750,000 barrels of crude oil to be released into the environment since 2004. These safety concerns remain unaddressed by this legislation.
Anti-protest laws don’t just target protests – they redefine what it means to speak out, turning civic participation against oil and pipeline projects into a criminal act, which may be intended to create a chilling effect across local communities that are forced to host these projects. True leadership from lawmakers should mean rejecting these efforts and defending First Amendment rights. Lawmakers should safeguard free speech, ensure fair treatment for peaceful demonstrators, and focus their energy on holding companies accountable for oil and gas pipeline accidents and genuine safety concerns.
