Clear the ROADS Act

Bill Number

H.R. 3880

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Transportation and Public Works

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-06-11: Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.

Last Updated

2025-07-15T08:06:22Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

The Clear the Reckless Obstructions And Dangers on Streets Act (Clear the ROADS Act) aims to promote public safety on federal-aid highways by requiring states to take steps against reckless obstructions by non-governmental individuals. It ties compliance to federal highway funding to encourage states to prohibit actions that knowingly and recklessly block vehicle traffic in ways that endanger public health or safety.

Key Provisions

• Funding Withholding Mechanism: Starting no later than the first October 1 after the Secretary of Transportation issues necessary regulations (or after a state holds a legislative session, whichever is later), and annually thereafter, the Secretary must withhold 10% of a state's apportionments under sections 104(b)(1) and 104(b)(2) of title 23, United States Code (which cover general highway funding), unless the state is certified as compliant.
• Compliance Requirement: A state complies if the Secretary determines it has made "reasonable efforts" to prohibit individuals not working for federal, state, or local governments from knowingly and recklessly obstructing lawful vehicle transportation on federal-aid highways in a manner that endangers public safety or health.
• Rulemaking Deadline: The Secretary of Transportation must issue regulations to implement this within 180 days of the bill's enactment.
• Clerical Update: Adds a new section 180 to chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, with corresponding updates to the chapter's table of contents.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• This bill introduces a new conditional funding penalty in title 23, United States Code, which governs federal highway programs. Previously, apportionments under section 104(b) were distributed without specific penalties for roadway obstructions by private individuals.
• It adds enforcement leverage through funding withholding, similar to existing mechanisms for safety or environmental compliance (e.g., for seatbelt laws or drunk driving), but targets a narrower issue of reckless, non-official blockages on highways.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: State departments of transportation may face reduced federal funding (up to 10% of key apportionments), prompting them to enact or enforce laws against roadway blockages, such as during protests or unauthorized events. The U.S. Department of Transportation would gain administrative duties for certifications and regulations.
• On Citizens: Could enhance highway safety by deterring dangerous obstructions, potentially reducing accidents or delays from reckless blockades. However, it might limit certain forms of public assembly if interpreted broadly, affecting individuals engaging in civil disobedience.
• On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, as the bill focuses on domestic highway funding and state-level enforcement.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• States and Local Governments: Primary recipients of federal highway funds; non-compliance could strain budgets and require new laws or policing priorities.
• U.S. Department of Transportation: Responsible for rulemaking, certifications, and fund withholding, increasing its oversight role.
• General Public and Drivers: Benefit from safer roads but may see indirect effects on traffic enforcement.
• Activists and Protesters: Potentially impacted if their actions are deemed "reckless obstructions," leading to stricter state responses.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal Implications: The term "reasonable efforts" introduces some flexibility but could lead to disputes over what qualifies as compliance or "reckless" obstruction, possibly resulting in lawsuits challenging Secretary certifications. It builds on existing federal funding conditions but must align with highway law definitions.
• Constitutional Implications: May raise First Amendment concerns if applied to protected speech or assembly (e.g., protests), as courts could scrutinize whether it unduly burdens free expression while advancing public safety interests. Federalism issues might arise, as it pressures states to adopt specific policies without direct mandates.
• Political Implications: Positions the federal government as intervening in state law enforcement priorities, potentially sparking debates over balancing safety with civil liberties; it could influence transportation policy by linking funding to emerging issues like protest-related disruptions.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Huizenga, Bill [R-MI-4]

Cosponsors (2)

Rep. Kustoff, David [R-TN-8], Rep. Moolenaar, John R. [R-MI-2]

Recent Actions

• 2025-06-11: Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
• 2025-06-10: Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
• 2025-06-10: Introduced in House
• 2025-06-10: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Clear the Reckless Obstructions And Dangers on Streets Act — issued 2025-06-10 — PDF (3 pages)