Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Highway Obstruction Civil Penalty topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee refers bill creating civil penalties for highway obstruction to Judiciary after split debate
Summary
House File 367, authored by Representative Murphy, would create a civil cause of action for obstruction of highways. The Transportation and Finance Policy Committee voted 8-6 to send the bill to Judiciary and Civil Law after witnesses and members debated public-safety needs and First Amendment concerns.
The Transportation and Finance Policy Committee voted to refer House File 367 to the Judiciary and Civil Law Committee after members debated whether the bill would protect first responders and public safety or chill constitutionally protected protest.
Representative Brian Murphy, sponsor of the bill, said House File 367 responds to incidents in 2020 in which multiple highways were obstructed at once and that the change would provide a civil remedy for people harmed by obstruction. "It imposes a civil penalty. It allows for standing in court so that protesters could be sued and, protects the protesters as well," Murphy said, adding the measure aims to help first responders and avoid accidents when highways are used for demonstrations.
Teresa Nelson, legal director for the ACLU of Minnesota, testified in opposition and said the measure is unnecessary and would chill speech. "This bill would also allow for punishments that are vastly out of proportion to the conduct at issue," Nelson said, arguing that existing criminal laws can address demonstrations that get out of hand and that the civil-liability approach allows for monetary damages and a lower burden of proof that could be used to target controversial speech.
Members were divided. Supporters, including Representative Steve Anderson, said obstructing highways endangers motorists and responders and that the bill does not bar peaceful demonstrations off the roadway. Opponents said criminal penalties and the risk of bodily harm already disincentivize highway protests and that a new civil remedy could have a chilling effect on the First Amendment.
Representative Murphy moved referral to Judiciary and Civil Law. Roll call was requested; the committee approved referral on a roll-call vote of 8 yeas and 6 nays. The committee recorded the following votes: Chair Kosnick (yes); Vice Chair Myers (yes); Representative Anderson (yes); Representative Fogelman (yes); Representative Joy (yes); Representative Murphy (yes); Representative Olsen (yes); Representative Scraba (yes); Representatives Green, Jones, Kraft, Ream, Sensamora and Tabke (no); Representative Berg was excused.
The bill will proceed to Judiciary and Civil Law, where members said the judicial and constitutional implications will be further examined.
