I think yes. Is my reasoning correct? The reasoning:
Suppose, for an example, that prostitution was legal, but then the State changed its laws and criminalized prostitution. Has the State created structural unemployment? From point of view of the State and official economy prostituion as a job stopped existing. There WAS such a job, but it's no more due to new laws. We don't consider illegal activites to be jobs, like we don't consider a professional bank robber to having a job of bank-robbing.
Let's consider subtler (and crazier) example: the government made it illegal to own computers. Programming as a profession died as the result. This is a subtler example because programming wasn't made illegal. Technically you don't need to own a computer to create a program. You can create a program using a pen and paper and then send the result to a person/organization that owns a computer somewhere abroad, where computers are legal. Or you can borrow a computer and then program it. The first approach is so cumbersome that it's absolutely unpragrmatical and uncompetitive, while the second approach (borrowing) requires somebody who can own a computer. Programming as such wouldn't be illegal, but due to pragmatic considerations it would involve, directly (when a programmer owns their computer) or indirectly (when a programmer uses computer owned by somebody else) breaking new laws. So practically people would be forced to abandon programming as a way to make ends meet because they wouldn't want to get in a trouble with the Law. I think that it's an example of structural unemployment because by its consequences for programmers it would be similiar to society losing ability to get and use computers (as users, not as programmers).
The third example. Suppose the State had death penalty, but then banned it. People who previously earned their living as executioners lost ability to continue working as executioners. From their point of view consequences are the same as if they were made obsolete by robotic executioners. So here we have structural unemployment.
The fourth example. Suppose minimum wages law was introduced. And minimum wages were set so generous that some part-time job disappeared. I would argue that it's structural unemployment because consequences are the same (from point of view of people who previously worked at part-time jobs) as if said part-time jobs were automatized.
Each of this example shows that structural unemployment can result from regulations/laws. Although it's excessive, technically we need at the least one correct example, so I in sense overproved it.