The Manhattan Institute and the Legislative Reclassification of Protest as Civil Terrorism

The Manhattan Institute, a prominent conservative think tank with a storied history of shaping American urban and legal policy, has launched a coordinated legislative campaign to redefine nonviolent civil disobedience as "civil terrorism." This initiative, which seeks to elevate minor protest-related offenses from misdemeanors to high-level felonies, represents a significant shift in the legal landscape governing the First Amendment right to peaceable assembly. By targeting acts such as blocking roadways, trespassing, and vandalism during demonstrations, the institute aims to implement a "zero-tolerance" framework for political disruption, mirroring its influential work in New York City during the 1990s.

The Intellectual Architecture of Civil Terrorism

The Manhattan Institute was co-founded in 1978 by William Casey, who later served as the Director of Central Intelligence under President Ronald Reagan. Historically, the institute is best known for championing the "Broken Windows" theory of policing, which posits that maintaining order and addressing minor crimes prevents more serious criminal activity. This philosophy served as the bedrock for New York City’s policing strategies in the 1990s and has since been exported to municipalities across the globe.

In recent years, the institute has pivoted its focus toward cultural and systemic issues, leading high-profile campaigns against "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" (DEI) programs and progressive social movements. The current "civil terrorism" campaign is the latest iteration of this effort. Spearheaded by legal policy fellow Tal Fortgang, the theory argues that mass nonviolent disruption is not merely a nuisance but a calculated tool of coercion that mirrors the psychological impact of traditional terrorism without the attendant bloodshed.

Fortgang, a graduate of New York University Law School, has argued in the Wall Street Journal and the institute’s City Journal that the tactics employed by modern left-wing agitators—such as blocking bridges or disrupting public infrastructure—are designed to "inconvenience and disrupt as many civilians as possible" to force government policy changes. Under this framework, the institute advocates for 18-month prison sentences for crimes that have historically been treated as minor infractions or citations.

Legislative Progress in Utah and Arizona

The Manhattan Institute’s model legislation has already seen significant success in statehouses. In Utah, the legislature recently passed HB 331, a bill heavily influenced by the institute’s policy recommendations. Signed into law by Governor Spencer Cox on March 24, the legislation passed with overwhelming Republican support and minimal dissent.

HB 331 introduces several stringent measures:

• Aggravated Disorderly Conduct: The law heightens penalties for disorderly conduct during protests, reclassifying certain behaviors as felonies.
• Mask Bans: The legislation prohibits civilians from wearing masks during protests, a move that has drawn criticism for its perceived hypocrisy, as law enforcement and federal agents are frequently permitted to remain masked during the same events.
• Foreign Organization Clauses: The law creates a new criminal category for "unlawfully advancing foreign organizations," a provision critics argue could be used to target groups advocating for international causes, such as Palestinian rights or environmental protections.

In Arizona, a similar effort is underway via HB 2136. Although the state’s political landscape is more divided, the bill cleared the House of Representatives in a 31-21 vote and is currently awaiting a final decision in the State Senate. Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, previously vetoed a bill that would have made blocking a roadway a felony, but the current legislative push includes broader language that may complicate the executive response.

A History of Targeting Dissent

The push for these laws does not exist in a vacuum. Legal experts and civil rights advocates point to a long-standing trend in states like Arizona to use the legal system to suppress specific political viewpoints. Darrell Hill, policy director for the ACLU of Arizona, notes that the state has a history of targeting protesters dating back to the 2010 movement against SB 1070, the controversial immigration law.

Hill argues that the "civil terrorism" narrative is part of a broader strategy to equate left-wing activism with extremism. "The people passing these laws have a very biased worldview," Hill stated, "and they never expect that these powers will be used against them."

This concern is supported by past incidents where authorities have attempted to use unconventional statutes to prosecute protesters. In 2020, following the protests sparked by the murder of George Floyd, prosecutors in Maricopa County, Arizona, attempted to charge 15 demonstrators as members of a "criminal street gang." The prosecution claimed the protesters belonged to an "ACAB (All Cops Are Bastards) gang." A judge eventually dismissed the charges, and the lead prosecutor was suspended for two years for fabricating the evidence presented to the grand jury. Advocates worry that "civil terrorism" statutes would provide a more permanent and legally sanctioned tool for similar overreach.

Supporting Data: The Rise of Anti-Protest Legislation

The Manhattan Institute’s campaign is part of a documented national surge in anti-protest legislation. According to data from the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL), more than 40 states have introduced nearly 300 bills since 2017 that restrict the right to protest.

Key trends in this data include:

1. Increased Penalties for Roadway Obstruction: At least 15 states have passed laws specifically targeting protesters who block traffic, often providing immunity for drivers who accidentally strike protesters with their vehicles.
2. Expanded Definition of Rioting: Many bills seek to broaden the legal definition of a "riot" so that an entire group can be held liable for the actions of a single individual.
3. Racketeering Charges: There is a growing movement to apply RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) statutes to protest organizers, a tactic recently seen in Georgia regarding the "Stop Cop City" movement.

The Manhattan Institute’s contribution to this trend is the specific "terrorism" branding, which carries significant social and legal weight. By attaching the label of terrorism to nonviolent acts, the state can potentially justify enhanced surveillance, asset forfeiture, and the stripping of certain civil liberties that would not apply to standard misdemeanor cases.

Official Reactions and Constitutional Concerns

The response from Democratic lawmakers and constitutional scholars has been one of alarm. Arizona State Senator Catherine Miranda, a high-ranking Democrat, characterized HB 2136 as a direct assault on the First Amendment. "It is meant to have a chilling effect on our right to speak out against a state or federal government that is repressing our civil rights and embracing authoritarianism," Miranda said. She specifically highlighted the provision that would make it a felony for just two people to block a sidewalk, arguing it effectively criminalizes the very nature of public assembly.

In contrast, proponents like Representative Michael Way, a Republican from Phoenix, argue that the legislation is a necessary response to "violent immigration enforcement blitzes" and protests that "take over the lives" of ordinary citizens. For Way and other supporters, the right to protest does not include the right to disrupt the economy or the daily routines of the public.

Fortgang maintains that the legislation is viewpoint-neutral, though he admitted in correspondence that his writings focus on anti-war, pro-Palestinian, and Black Lives Matter activists because he believes they constitute the majority of groups engaged in disruptive behavior. He argues that without these laws, the interests of the majority are "subordinated" to the "ever-escalating demonstrations" of a vocal minority.

Broader Impact and Implications

The reclassification of protest as "civil terrorism" has implications that extend far beyond the immediate sentencing of activists. If these laws become standard across Republican-led states, they could fundamentally alter the mechanics of social change in the United States.

Historically, nonviolent disruption—from the Boston Tea Party to the Civil Rights Movement’s lunch counter sit-ins—has been a cornerstone of American political evolution. By shifting the legal threshold of such acts to the level of terrorism, the state effectively removes the "safety valve" of civil disobedience.

Furthermore, the "civil terrorism" framework may impact the financial stability of advocacy groups. If an organization is found to be "advocating" for acts that fall under the new definition of civil terrorism, they could face investigations under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) or lose their tax-exempt status. This creates a secondary layer of deterrence, where the threat of legal and financial ruin prevents organizations from even planning large-scale demonstrations.

As Arizona’s Senate prepares to vote and other states look toward the Manhattan Institute for policy guidance, the debate over "civil terrorism" will likely serve as a pivotal moment in the ongoing tension between public order and the constitutional right to dissent. The outcome will determine whether the "Broken Windows" philosophy of the 1990s will be successfully adapted to govern the political expressions of the 21st century.