H.R. 4015 inserts a new subsection into 18 U.S.C. §1951 (the Hobbs Act) that makes it a federal offense to "purposely obstruct, delay, or affect commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce" by blocking a public road or highway, and it criminalizes attempts and conspiracies to do so. The maximum criminal penalty in the bill is a fine, imprisonment up to 5 years, or both.
The bill also makes several conforming edits: it shortens the statutory heading for §1951, adjusts the chapter table of sections, and strikes phrases in cross-references across Title 5 and Title 18 that presently reference obstruction "by threats or violence." Those edits have knock-on effects for statutes that treat §1951 offenses as predicates or triggers for personnel and investigative provisions.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds §1951(b), a standalone federal offense targeting the purposeful blocking of public roads that affects commerce, and authorizes prosecution for attempts and conspiracies to do so. It sets the maximum imprisonment term at 5 years and preserves fines.
Who It Affects
Protest participants and organizers who block roads, commercial drivers and supply-chain operators whose routes are disrupted, law enforcement agencies that respond to road blockages, and federal prosecutors who may gain an additional tool for charging disruptions that affect interstate commerce.
Why It Matters
By creating an express federal offense tied to blocking public roads, the bill widens the Hobbs Act’s practical reach into conduct often prosecuted at the state or local level. The conforming edits to cross-references also change how other federal provisions treat §1951 offenses, with potential implications for RICO predicates, personnel rules, and wiretap/authorization cross-references.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
H.R. 4015 modifies the federal Hobbs Act to target a specific kind of disruption: intentional blockages of public roads or highways that "obstruct, delay, or affect" commerce or the movement of goods. It adds a new subsection to §1951 making that specific conduct a federal crime and explicitly covers attempts and conspiracies, so organizers and those who plan or attempt road blockages are within reach of the statute.
The bill prescribes criminal penalties — a fine, imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both — rather than civil enforcement. Importantly, it leaves the existing subsections of §1951 (which address extortion, robbery, and related violence) intact by shifting their subsection letters; it adds the road-blocking offense alongside those existing provisions rather than replacing them.Beyond the new subsection, the bill makes a number of textual 'clean-up' edits: it shortens the heading of §1951 to "Interference with commerce," updates the chapter table of sections, and removes certain qualifying language (phrases like "by threats or violence") from other statutory cross-references in Title 5 and Title 18.
Those cross-reference edits are technical on their face but carry practical weight because other federal statutes refer to §1951 as a predicate offense or as a trigger for administrative or investigative actions.Taken together, the measure federalizes a subset of road-blocking conduct that has typically been handled by states and localities, and it does so without any express carve-out for peaceful assembly or permitted demonstrations. Prosecutors would need to show purposeful conduct and an effect on commerce or movement of goods to obtain federal convictions under the new text.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates a new §1951(b) that makes it unlawful to purposely obstruct, delay, or affect commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce by blocking a public road or highway, and it covers attempts and conspiracies.
The statutory maximum penalty for the new offense is a fine, imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both.
The measure preserves existing §1951 provisions by redesignating current subsections (b) and (c) as (c) and (d), so extortion- and robbery-related Hobbs Act crimes remain on the books.
The bill removes the phrase 'by threats or violence' from the §1951 heading and from multiple cross-references in Title 5 and Title 18, altering how other federal statutes reference §1951.
The federal jurisdictional hook remains the Hobbs Act’s commerce language — the government must still show that the road blockage ‘affect[s] commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce’ to invoke the new federal offense.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the act’s short title, "Safe and Open Streets Act." This is a formal element with no substantive effect on criminal law but signals the bill’s stated policy aim in legislative posture and explanatory materials.
Adds a road‑blocking offense to the Hobbs Act
The bill inserts a new subsection (b) into §1951 making it a federal crime to purposefully obstruct, delay, or affect interstate commerce (or the movement of goods in commerce) by blocking a public road or highway. The provision explicitly criminalizes attempts and conspiracies and sets the penalty at a fine, imprisonment up to 5 years, or both. Practically, this creates a single, offense‑level federal statute tied to traffic obstruction that prosecutors can use alongside, not in place of, other local or state statutes.
Keeps existing Hobbs Act language intact
Existing subsections (b) and (c) of §1951 are redesignated as (c) and (d), respectively, so the statute’s robbery/extortion/violent‑conduct provisions remain operative. That means the bill adds a parallel route for federal prosecution rather than restructuring or eliminating prior Hobbs Act offenses.
Edits statutory headings and cross‑references in Titles 5 and 18
The bill changes the §1951 heading to "Interference with commerce," updates the chapter table entry, and directs several textual deletions in other statutes — notably striking qualifying phrases like "by threats or violence" from Title 5 §8332(o)(2)(B)(xx) and from provisions in Title 18 such as 18 U.S.C. §1961(1) and §2516(1)(c). Those deletions alter downstream references to §1951 in statutes that rely on specific phrasing, affecting how those provisions identify predicate offenses or triggers for administrative and investigative procedures.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice 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
- Interstate shippers and logistics companies — they gain a federal enforcement pathway to deter and punish road blockages that disrupt supply chains across state lines.
- State and local agencies seeking additional enforcement tools — federal prosecutors can be asked to intervene in large or persistent blockages affecting commerce, supplementing local prosecutions.
- Motorists and businesses dependent on timely deliveries — the statute aims to reduce the incidence of long-duration road blockages that create cascading commercial costs.
Who Bears the Cost
- Protest groups and civil disobedience organizers — the new federal offense targets intentional road blockages and includes attempts and conspiracies, expanding criminal exposure for organized demonstrations that use road-blocking tactics.
- Federal courts and prosecutors — potential new caseload and investigative demands as some road‑blocking cases shift from state to federal forums or involve concurrent jurisdictional questions.
- Civil liberties organizations and defense counsel — likely to face more federal prosecutions raising First Amendment, vagueness, and overbreadth challenges, increasing litigation and defense resource needs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The core dilemma is a classic trade-off: the bill aims to protect commerce and public safety by deterring road blockages, but in doing so it expands federal criminal law into conduct often tied to political expression; enforcing a broad, purpose‑based prohibition on blocking roads risks criminalizing nonviolent protest and importing First Amendment litigation into federal courts while leaving open how large an effect on commerce is required to trigger federal jurisdiction.
Two practical and legal tensions stand out. First, the bill relies on the Hobbs Act’s commerce hook — the offense requires showing an effect on commerce or the movement of goods in commerce — but it does not define a threshold for that effect.
Courts have historically treated the Hobbs Act’s commerce element broadly, which could allow federal prosecutors to bring charges for relatively localized blockages that have limited commercial impact. That broad reach is paired with no statutory carve-out for constitutionally protected protest activity; the text criminalizes purposeful blocking without an explicit First Amendment safe harbor, which invites litigation over whether nonviolent demonstrations fall within the statute’s scope.
Second, the conforming edits raise drafting and doctrinal questions. The bill removes language like "by threats or violence" from the §1951 heading and strips certain cross‑referenced phrases elsewhere in Titles 5 and 18.
That alters how other statutes identify §1951 offenses as predicates or triggers — for example, in the context of RICO predicates or in administrative dismissal/employee discipline provisions. The deletions are technical on their face but could produce unintended consequences in statutes that relied on the original phrasing; some deletions as drafted appear broader than necessary and may require further legislative refinement to avoid changing unrelated legal baselines.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.