S-2376-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Ted Cruz (R-TX)
What it does
This bill would amend the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act by adding the federal riot statute (18 U.S.C. § 2101) to the list of crimes that qualify as "racketeering activity." This means that individuals or organizations involved in riots could be prosecuted under RICO, which allows for enhanced penalties, civil liability, and the ability to target entire criminal enterprises — not just individual actors. The bill makes a single statutory cross-reference change to the existing definition of racketeering activity in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1).
Who benefits
Federal prosecutors, who would gain an additional legal tool to pursue organized groups alleged to coordinate or finance riots. State and local governments that have faced property damage or public safety costs from riots. Businesses and property owners who could potentially bring civil RICO suits against organizers of riots that caused them financial harm. Victims of riot-related violence or property destruction, who could use civil RICO provisions to seek treble damages from organizers.
Who is hurt
Individuals and organizations involved in protest movements who could face RICO charges if any associated activity is characterized as a riot — including organizers, funders, or participants who may not have personally engaged in violence. Civil liberties and advocacy groups that argue the federal riot statute (§ 2101) is itself broadly worded, potentially sweeping in protected speech and assembly. Defense attorneys and legal aid organizations that would face more complex and resource-intensive cases. Nonprofit organizations that fund or organize large-scale demonstrations, who could face civil RICO liability.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that organized rioting — particularly when coordinated across state lines or funded by outside groups — already resembles the kind of criminal enterprise RICO was designed to dismantle, and that existing law creates an inconsistency by excluding it. They contend that the 2020 riots caused an estimated $1–2 billion in insured property damage, making them among the costliest in U.S. history, and that individual prosecutions have proven insufficient to deter organized, multi-city violence. Adding rioting to RICO, they argue, would allow prosecutors to target the networks that plan, fund, and direct riots rather than only the individuals who physically participate.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the federal riot statute (§ 2101) is already broad enough to cover speech that "encourages" or "promotes" a riot, meaning RICO's conspiracy and enterprise provisions could be used against protest organizers, journalists, or donors who had no involvement in violence. They contend that RICO's severe penalties — up to 20 years per count, asset forfeiture, and civil treble damages — would create a chilling effect on constitutionally protected First Amendment activity, including lawful assembly and political organizing. Critics further argue that existing federal and state laws already provide ample tools to prosecute riot-related violence without the sweeping reach of RICO.
Constitutional context
The federal riot statute (18 U.S.C. § 2101) has previously been challenged on First Amendment grounds because it criminalizes speech that "encourages" rioting, not just participation in violence. Applying RICO's enterprise and conspiracy framework to this predicate offense could amplify those concerns, as RICO allows prosecution of individuals who associate with a criminal enterprise even without direct participation in every underlying act. The Fifth Amendment's due process protections and the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech and assembly are the most directly relevant provisions.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (DOJ and federal prosecutors) would gain expanded charging authority; checks include judicial review of RICO indictments, the requirement to prove a "pattern of racketeering activity," and appellate review of convictions and civil judgments.
Historical precedent
The federal government used RICO extensively against organized crime beginning in the 1970s and later applied it to anti-abortion protest groups in NOW v. Scheidler (1994), though the Supreme Court ultimately limited that application; no prior legislation has specifically added the federal riot statute as a RICO predicate.