New law shields riot participants from lawsuits over vehicle injuries

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 'preponderance of the evidence' standard allows defendants to prove riot participation without a conviction, lowering the evidentiary bar and creating a parallel civil-discovery process.
• The bill does not require nexus between the riot and the vehicle incident, meaning a person convicted of rioting in one city could use the defense for an unrelated motor-vehicle injury in another.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

Ordinary citizens injured by motor vehicles, or families of those killed, lose their right to sue or prosecute drivers who claim riot participation. The bill creates a blanket liability shield for a narrow class (riot participants) at the expense of accident victims' remedies, regardless of whether the driver's riot status caused the injury or was merely coincidental.

Who stands to gain

• riot participants facing civil or criminal liability for motor-vehicle incidents

Named in the bill

18 U.S.C. Chapter 2, 18 U.S.C. Section 2101 (rioting), House Committee on the Judiciary

Where it stands

2 cosponsors: 2 Republicans.

• Aug 1, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Aug 1, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

2 lobbying clients named this bill on 3 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $1,025,758 in lobbying spend. A filing names 127 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 41% of bills with at least one filing.

Randy Fine, the sponsor, reported $439,660 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies — $1,005,758 on 2 filings
• American Society of Interior Designers — $20,000 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 21, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.