New law shields riot participants from lawsuits over vehicle injuries
H.R. 4846 — ROAD Act · Filed by Randy Fine (R-FL) · 2 cosponsors · Introduced Aug 1, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill adds a new legal defense (Section 40B) to federal criminal and civil law: if someone injures or kills a person or damages property using a motor vehicle, they can claim the harm arose from their participation in a riot, and if they've been convicted of rioting (or can prove it by a preponderance of evidence), the lawsuit or prosecution can be dismissed or stayed. The bill shields riot participants from liability for vehicle-based harm.
Why we flagged it
The bill's operative mechanism is a legal immunity: it creates an affirmative defense that allows defendants to escape liability for motor-vehicle harm if they can prove riot participation. This is a narrow carve-out from ordinary tort and criminal liability, not a public-safety or regulatory measure.
What the text implies
- The defense applies regardless of whether the defendant's riot participation caused the injury—a driver hit by a riot participant's vehicle could invoke the defense even if the riot had nothing to do with the collision.
- Civil actions can be stayed indefinitely pending a criminal conviction that may never materialize, leaving injured parties without remedy for years.
The full analysis lists 4 implications of this text.
Who stands to gain
riot participants facing civil or criminal liability for motor-vehicle incidents