A federal judge in Brooklyn blocked enforcement of New York's Religious Safety Act, finding the law likely violates the First Amendment. U.S. District Judge granted a preliminary injunction that prevents the state from prosecuting violations while the case proceeds.
The Religious Safety Act prohibited picketing, oral advocacy, and literature distribution within 35 feet of entrances or driveways to houses of worship. The law imposed criminal penalties for these activities.
Plaintiffs challenging the statute include advocates seeking to promote immigrant rights as an expression of their Catholic faith. They argued the law criminalizes basic First Amendment conduct, including wearing political message T-shirts near worship sites. The judge found these plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on their constitutional claims.
The preliminary injunction analysis examines four factors: likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm absent the injunction, balance of equities, and the public interest. The court concluded the plaintiffs showed probable victory on First Amendment grounds. The law's sweeping ban on protected speech near houses of worship conflicts with established precedent protecting expressive activity in public spaces.
New York defended the statute as necessary to protect religious institutions from disruption and harassment. The state argued the 35-foot buffer zone represents a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction. Courts apply intermediate scrutiny to such restrictions, requiring the government to demonstrate a significant interest and narrow tailoring to achieve that interest without substantially burdening protected speech.
The judge rejected this rationale. The law's blanket prohibition on advocacy, leafleting, and picketing fails the narrow tailoring requirement because it restricts far more speech than necessary to prevent genuine disruption or harassment. The statute applies regardless of content, timing, or actual disruption caused by the speech.
This ruling signals the full case presents substantial First Amendment concerns. Religious groups and their supporters now retain the ability to engage in peaceful advocacy near houses of worship while litigation continues