The bill adds a new federal offense—codified as 18 U.S.C. §1370—that makes it a crime to knowingly engage in conduct on a highway of the Interstate System with the intent to obstruct its free, convenient, and normal use. The statute enumerates three categories of prohibited acts (deliberately delaying traffic; standing or approaching a motor vehicle; endangering the safe movement of vehicles) and excludes activities lawfully authorized by federal, state, or local governments.
Penalties are tiered by harm: a base maximum of $10,000 and 15 years’ imprisonment; an elevated maximum of $15,000 and 20 years where an authorized emergency vehicle is obstructed (cross-referencing a regulatory definition); and an enhanced range up to life where the obstruction results in death. The measure federalizes obstruction on the Interstate System, creating new prosecutorial tools and raising implementation and constitutional questions for courts, law enforcement, and civil liberties stakeholders.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill establishes a standalone federal offense that criminalizes knowingly obstructing an Interstate System highway with intent to interfere with normal use, lists three specific categories of obstructive conduct, and provides an exception for government-authorized activities. It sets three penalty tiers tied to the nature and consequence of the obstruction, including a separate enhancement for blocking authorized emergency vehicles.
Who It Affects
The primary targets are persons who stage or facilitate roadway blockages on interstates—protesters, demonstrators, and anyone who intentionally delays traffic or approaches vehicles on those roads. It also directly affects federal prosecutors, state and local law enforcement who must coordinate jurisdiction, transportation agencies responsible for interstate safety, and emergency-response entities that rely on unobstructed corridors.
Why It Matters
By putting interstate obstruction in the federal criminal code, the bill moves conduct traditionally handled by states into federal hands on a geographically specific basis. That change raises questions about enforcement choices, sentencing severity, interplay with First Amendment protections, and how prosecutors will prove intent and 'knowing' conduct in everyday demonstrations or traffic incidents.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a new section into chapter 65 of title 18 creating a single, focused offense for obstruction on the Interstate System. It borrows the statutory definition of “interstate highway” from title 23, so the law covers only highways on the Interstate System rather than all federal or state roads.
The core mental elements are twofold: the actor must act knowingly and must possess the intent to obstruct the free, convenient, and normal use of the interstate "—so both awareness of the conduct and a purpose to disrupt travel are statutory elements.
Subsection (b) lists three types of forbidden conduct rather than attempting an open-ended prohibition: deliberately delaying traffic, standing or approaching a motor vehicle, and endangering the safe movement of motor vehicles. Those enumerated acts are capacious—particularly the “standing or approaching a motor vehicle” phrase—and will be central in prosecutions and defenses because they convert a wide range of roadside behavior into potentially criminal acts when combined with intent to obstruct.
The statute expressly excludes any activity lawfully conducted or authorized by the United States, a State, or a political subdivision, which preserves permits and official traffic-control operations but does not itself define what administrative approvals suffice.Penalties are layered. The baseline violation carries a felony exposure of up to 15 years and a fine up to $10,000.
A higher tier applies where an authorized emergency vehicle is obstructed, raising the statutory maximum to 20 years and $15,000 in fines; the bill imports the regulatory definition of “authorized emergency vehicle” by reference to title 36, CFR, section 1001.4 (or a successor regulation). If the obstruction results in death, the statute allows imprisonment for any term of years or for life and fines up to the applicable amount—treating fatal outcomes as subject to the broadest penalties available.
The measure also updates the chapter’s table of sections to add the new offense.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Creates 18 U.S.C. §1370 and limits the statute’s geographic scope to highways on the Interstate System as defined in 23 U.S.C. §101(a).
Defines the prohibited conduct as three discrete acts: deliberately delaying traffic; standing or approaching a motor vehicle; and endangering the safe movement of a motor vehicle.
Requires both that the defendant act 'knowingly' and that they possess the specific intent to obstruct the free, convenient, and normal use of the interstate highway.
Establishes three penalty tiers: up to $10,000 and 15 years’ imprisonment generally; up to $15,000 and 20 years when an authorized emergency vehicle is obstructed; and any term of years or life when the obstruction causes death.
Includes an explicit exception for activities 'conducted or authorized by the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State,' leaving permits and government operations outside the statute’s reach.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Authorizes citation of the bill as the 'Safe Passage on Interstates Act of 2025.' This is a statutory formality but signals the bill’s policy focus on maintaining uninterrupted travel on the Interstate System.
Scope—what counts as an 'interstate highway'
This provision imports the definition of 'interstate highway' from 23 U.S.C. §101(a), so the law applies only to roads formally part of the Interstate System. That limits reach compared with a blanket prohibition on all highways or public roads and creates a clear geographic boundary: state and local roads outside the Interstate System remain governed by state law unless other federal statutes apply.
Substantive offense—acts and mental state
The statute makes it unlawful to 'knowingly engage' in enumerated activities 'with the intent to obstruct' normal interstate use. Prosecutors therefore must prove both awareness of the conduct and a purpose to obstruct travel. The three listed activities give prosecutors concrete charging avenues but also create interpretive questions—especially around 'standing or approaching a motor vehicle' and 'endangering the safe movement'—that will determine how the statute applies to marches, sit-ins, and vehicle-related confrontations. The subsection also carves out an exception for activities that are lawfully conducted or authorized by government actors, preserving permitted events and official traffic control but leaving open how courts will assess borderline authorizations.
Penalties—three-tier structure and regulatory cross-reference
The bill sets a baseline felony penalty (up to $10,000 and 15 years), an elevated penalty for obstructing an 'authorized emergency vehicle' (up to $15,000 and 20 years), and allows life or any term of years where a death results. The emergency-vehicle enhancement references a regulatory definition in title 36, CFR §1001.4, tying criminal exposure to an administrative source. Those maximums convert many routine obstruction incidents into high-exposure federal felonies and give prosecutors significant leverage in plea negotiations and charging decisions.
Amendment to chapter table of sections
The bill adds §1370 to the table of sections for chapter 65, a clerical amendment that integrates the new offense into the federal criminal code. While technical, this inclusion finalizes the statute’s placement and signals its parity with other federal interstate-related offenses.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Motorists and commuters — Stand to gain from a new legal deterrent against deliberate blockages on interstate highways, which could reduce travel delays and economic costs tied to disrupted freight and passenger flows.
- Emergency responders and public safety agencies — Benefit from the elevated penalty tier for obstructing authorized emergency vehicles, which creates an additional criminal tool to protect response times on critical corridors.
- Freight and logistics companies — May see fewer large-scale disruptions on interstate routes and can use federal prosecutions as leverage in disputes over intentional obstructions that harm time-sensitive supply chains.
- State Departments of Transportation and highway operators — Gain a federal backstop for protecting interstate operations and infrastructure when state remedies are slow, inconsistent, or insufficient.
- U.S. Attorneys and federal law enforcement — Receive an additional statutory offense to prosecute interstate disruptions, enabling federal charging when interstate commerce, safety, or cross-jurisdictional coordination is implicated.
Who Bears the Cost
- Protesters and organizers who use civil disobedience on interstates — Face elevated criminal exposure, including long felony sentences and higher fines, which may change tactical calculations and increase risk of federal prosecution.
- Civil liberties organizations and defense counsel — Will likely bear increased litigation burdens defending constitutional challenges, prosecutorial discretion issues, and vagueness claims under the new federal statute.
- State and local law enforcement — May face added coordination demands with federal prosecutors, possible shifts in arrest-and-prosecution practices, and resource strains if federalization does not reduce local enforcement needs.
- Federal courts and the BOP — Could experience increased caseloads and incarceration demands from new federal felony prosecutions tied to interstate obstructions, particularly if cases proceed to conviction rather than plea resolution.
- Event planners and private entities near interstates — May confront heightened legal exposure or civil enforcement actions if their activities are interpreted as facilitating obstruction, increasing compliance and legal costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: the bill prioritizes unobstructed interstate movement and emergency access by imposing steep federal penalties, but doing so risks criminalizing a wide range of protest-related or roadside behavior, expanding federal reach into matters traditionally policed by states, and chilling constitutionally protected expression where intent and conduct are difficult to separate.
The bill resolves one policy problem—intentional obstructions of key interstate corridors—by creating a federal offense, but it leaves several operational and legal questions open. Key definitional phrases are broad and fact-dependent: 'deliberately delaying traffic,' 'standing or approaching a motor vehicle,' and 'endangering the safe movement' will all require statutory interpretation and fact-intensive proof.
Prosecutors must establish both 'knowing' conduct and an 'intent to obstruct,' which narrows the statute in theory but places practical pressure on charging decisions, evidence-gathering, and jury instructions.
The statute also raises federalism and civil liberties trade-offs. Applying federal criminal law to conduct often handled by states concentrates prosecutorial power at the national level and may duplicate or complicate state prosecutions.
The exception for government-authorized activity preserves permits, yet courts will eventually need to determine what counts as adequate authorization and whether selective enforcement against spontaneous or permitted demonstrations will survive constitutional scrutiny. Finally, cross-referencing an administrative definition for 'authorized emergency vehicle' imports an external source into criminal sentencing, creating an unusual reliance on federal regulations that may shift if those administrative definitions change.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.