NAACP challenges anti-protest law
Group says state violates constitutional rights
The Oklahoma chapter of the NAACP is suing two top law enforcement officials over a new state law the group says will limit protests and have a chilling effect on free speech.
The nation’s oldest civil rights group and the Georgetown Law Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection are challenging an Oklahoma law that classifies as a misdemeanor the unlawful obstruction of a road or highway and enacts fines for groups that conspire to incite riots or unlawful assemblies.
The groups say the law violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Americans the right to peacefully assemble and receive equal protection under the law.
At issue is House Bill 1674, which was passed by the GOP-led Oklahoma Legislature and signed by Gov. Kevin Stitt.
The lawsuit alleges the vagueness of HB 1674 could result in the NAACP being charged millions of dollars in fines should anyone break state law at demonstrations organized by the group.
The law says Oklahomans who unlawfully obstruct a road or highway could be subject to fines of up to $5,000 and conspirators could face fines up to $50,000. The lawsuit argues HB 1674 is not clear about whether conspirators could face just one $50,000 fine or maximum penalties for multiple violations.
“The added punishment for organizations looked as though they were placed there for the purposes of scaring civil rights organizations out of organizing demonstrations and protests for fear that the excessive fines that this statute imposes would essentially cripple or bankrupt some civil rights organizations,” said NAACP Director of Affirmative Litigation Anthony Ashton.
Ashton said every NAACP event is expected to be a peaceful event, but he expressed concerns that the group could be liable for the actions of unaffiliated protesters who try to cause trouble.
The lawsuit also alleges HB 1674 doesn’t clearly define a “conspirator” or how much time blocking a road or highway constitutes a violation of state law.
“Five minutes, five seconds, or some other temporal interval might all trigger a violation,” according to the lawsuit.
Oklahoma Attorney General John O’Connor and Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater are named in the lawsuit because they would be tasked with enforcing the law when it takes effect Nov. 1, said Mary McCord, executive director of the Georgetown Law Institute.
An O’Connor spokesperson said the attorney general’s office is reviewing the lawsuit, but plans to “vigorously defend” the law.
HB 1674 made national headlines because it also says a motorist could be immune from civil or criminal liability for injuring or killing a person while “fleeing” a riot so long as the driver feared for their safety and exercised “due care” at the time of the injury.
However, the federal lawsuit filed in Oklahoma’s Western District doesn’t take issue with that portion of the law.
Rep. Kevin West, R-Moore, the author of HB 1674, said the legislation was not intended to quell free speech, but rather to punish rioters and protect law-abiding citizens who may be trapped in an unlawful assembly.