Connecticut’s highways are full of distractions. Billboards tower over traffic. Electronic ads flash warnings and slogans. Huge commercial signs are designed to grab a driver’s attention at 70 miles per hour. Most of it blends into the background of everyday driving, and most of it draws no police response at all.

But while Connecticut residents are increasingly displaying protest signs on overpasses, the reaction has been immediate: detentions, citations, arrests, and accusations that their speech itself was a public danger. That contradiction is now at the center of a federal ACLU lawsuit and a new agreement with Connecticut State Police.

The lawsuit was brought by Erin Quinn and Robert Marra, two Connecticut residents who joined a peaceful group known as the Visibility Brigade. Their goal was simple: stand on sidewalks above I-95 and hold signs urging their neighbors to think about democracy, the rule of law, and freedom. Their messages included phrases like “Due process is the law,” “No kings,” and “Hands Off Our Judges.”

They chose overpasses because I-95 is the most direct way to reach thousands of people across different communities. The protesters were not blocking traffic. They were not stepping into the roadway. They were standing where pedestrians are legally allowed to be, on municipal roads with sidewalks.

Beginning in early 2025, state troopers began appearing at these overpass demonstrations, warning protesters that any sign visible to interstate traffic was illegal — even if it was simply being held by hand from a public sidewalk. Officers suggested that demonstrators could even face criminal liability for “distracting” drivers below.

The enforcement escalated quickly. In May, Quinn and Marra joined a protest on the Howard Avenue overpass in New Haven. A trooper arrived, tore down signs, demanded identification, and accused the group of trespassing simply for being on an overpass sidewalk. The encounter left Quinn shaken, and others began reducing their participation out of fear.

By July, the crackdown had grown harsher. Another protester, 71-year-old Katherine Hinds, was arrested for holding signs from an overpass sidewalk. She was charged with breach of peace, trespass, and violating Connecticut’s “unauthorized signs” statute, a law meant to prevent traffic interference. The statute regulates the content of signs placed within 300 feet of a state highway. It prohibits signs containing words such as “stop,” “caution,” “danger,” “warning,” or “slow,” and also bans any symbol or message that could be interpreted as interfering with traffic. At the same time, the law includes carve-outs for certain favored messages, such as signs directing motorists to agricultural tourism destinations, Connecticut-made beer or wine sites, or nearby farms.

Weeks later, police arrested her again, pounding on her door at 6 a.m. after combing through her Facebook posts to build a case. For Quinn and Marra, this was the breaking point. They stopped protesting entirely, not because they no longer believed in their message, but because they feared arrest.

The heart of the ACLU’s argument is that Connecticut’s enforcement was not neutral. The state invoked laws about distraction and unauthorized signage against peaceful protesters, yet ignored the far more obvious distractions lining the highways every day.

Connecticut law forbids certain words like “Stop” or “Warning” on unauthorized signs near highways, yet electronic billboards and commercial advertisers use attention-grabbing messages constantly without consequence. The lawsuit includes examples of massive billboards placed at driver eye level along I-95, still standing without enforcement action.

Even more striking is the comparison to past protests. During President Obama’s tenure, demonstrators unhappy with the federal government attached signs to the same Howard Avenue overpass fencing and waved at traffic below without incident. Overpasses have also been used for other public displays, such as firefighters standing with large flags to honor a fallen colleague, again without apparent repercussions.

Other questionable billboard displays have also gone untouched. The lawsuit points to examples like a Connecticut law firm spreading a single sentence across multiple billboards in sequence, deliberately designed to keep drivers’ attention as they travel down the highway. Even more blatantly distracting ads — including infamous roadside messages like the “your wife is hot” billboard — have remained standing without enforcement. Critics argue that if these attention-grabbing commercial signs are allowed to slide by, it becomes harder to justify why peaceful protesters holding handmade signs on overpass sidewalks were treated as a public safety threat.

This raises the central question: why were these protesters treated differently? The lawsuit argues that state officials were effectively choosing which messages were acceptable, applying traffic safety laws aggressively against dissent while giving advertisers and other favored displays a free pass. That kind of selective enforcement is exactly what the First Amendment is supposed to prevent.

Connecticut State Police recently acknowledged the controversy in a public statement announcing an agreement with the ACLU. CSP said they had reached an understanding in the pending litigation over highway protests and would be issuing additional guidance to troopers to better protect First Amendment rights while maintaining road safety. They also asked the public to keep protests limited to sidewalk areas.

The agreement may sound like progress, but the deeper issue remains unresolved. The First Amendment does not exist only for convenient speech, or speech that makes authorities comfortable. It exists for the moments when citizens feel distressed about the direction of their country and decide to speak out anyway.

Connecticut’s highways will remain filled with distractions. The question is whether commercial distractions will continue unchecked while human voices holding handmade signs are treated as threats. If billboards can scream for attention without consequence, but peaceful protesters are arrested for holding messages about democracy, then the problem is not traffic safety. The problem is whose speech is being policed.

Read the full complaint here

IF YOU NEED A LAWYER CONTACT US