HR-8239-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Thomas Suozzi (D-NY)
What it does
This bill would create a new federal crime for intentionally blocking or intimidating people from entering or leaving a place of worship, or harassing someone within 8 feet of them inside a 100-foot zone around such a place. It would set criminal penalties ranging from fines and up to six months for nonviolent first offenses to up to life imprisonment if death results, and would create civil lawsuit rights for individuals, the Attorney General, and state attorneys general to seek damages and injunctions.
Who benefits
Congregants, clergy, and religious institutions of all faiths seeking to attend services without obstruction or intimidation; religious organizations that could sue under the new civil remedy provisions; federal and state prosecutors and attorneys general given new enforcement tools; potentially anti-abortion pregnancy centers or clinics operated on religious grounds that also fall under "place of religious worship."
Who is hurt
Protesters, picketers, and demonstrators near houses of worship who could face criminal or civil liability if their conduct is deemed to cross into intimidation or harassment, even though the bill exempts peaceful picketing; individuals accused under vague terms like "substantial emotional distress" who may face prosecution based on subjective reactions; defendants facing civil suits from multiple potential plaintiffs (individuals, U.S. Attorney General, and state attorneys general) for the same conduct.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that houses of worship have experienced a documented rise in threats, protests, and disruptive incidents in recent years, and that congregants deserve the same federal protection against obstruction already provided to reproductive health clinics under the FACE Act. They contend the bill's rules of construction explicitly preserve peaceful picketing and other First Amendment-protected expression, targeting only conduct that intimidates or obstructs access through fear of physical harm.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue the bill's broad terms—like "substantial emotional distress" and "course of conduct"—could chill lawful protest and religious counter-speech near controversial religious institutions, since enforcement will hinge on subjective interpretations of intent and reasonable fear. They contend that stacking criminal penalties with triple civil enforcement tracks (private suits, federal AG, and state AG actions) for the same underlying conduct creates disproportionate liability exposure compared to existing harassment and trespass laws already available at the state level.
Constitutional context
The bill implicates the First Amendment's protections for both free exercise of religion and free speech/assembly, since it must distinguish protected picketing from prohibited harassment near a religious site; this dynamic closely parallels the framework upheld for abortion clinics in the FACE Act context, addressed in Hill v. Colorado (2000) and related buffer-zone jurisprudence. Because the statute criminalizes conduct based partly on its emotional effect and location, courts would likely apply free-speech scrutiny alongside due process vagueness analysis of terms like "harass" and "intimidate."
Checks and balances
Congress would create a new federal criminal offense and civil enforcement authority for the Department of Justice and state attorneys general, while federal courts would review individual prosecutions and civil suits for compliance with First Amendment and vagueness standards.
Historical precedent
This bill closely mirrors the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act of 1994, which created similar federal criminal and civil protections against obstruction and intimidation at reproductive health facilities.