NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Multiple states have enacted new legislation this year criminalizing the disruption of religious services, responding to a controversial demonstration at a Minnesota church that sparked anger among religious leaders nationwide.
Republican legislators behind most of these measures argue that worshippers in religious sanctuaries need stronger protections than current trespassing statutes offer. They contend these new regulations will help prevent escalating confrontations between congregants and demonstrators, as houses of worship across the country remain anxious following recent mass shootings and violent incidents targeting faith communities.
“People should go to church to be able to sit in peace, worship as they please, without having to worry about people coming in and harassing them,” said Idaho Sen. Mark Harris, a Republican who co-sponsored legislation criminalizing protests inside places of worship. “I think the thing that happened in Minnesota was kind of a shock to some of us, that churches would be used as a place to berate people.”
However, critics from both political parties have cautioned that these measures could violate constitutional free speech protections.
The following provides an overview of these developments.
New legislation has been enacted in Republican-controlled Idaho, Louisiana and Oklahoma. Kansas will see its bill become law despite Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly declining to sign it.
Comparable measures have been proposed during this year’s legislative sessions in at least seven additional states and in Congress. Nassau County, New York, approved similar legislation this year. In 1994, President Bill Clinton signed federal legislation making it a crime to intentionally harm, interfere with, or intimidate individuals entering houses of worship or reproductive health facilities.
While the specifics vary among the bills, all establish criminal penalties for interfering with religious gatherings.
Current trespassing statutes already cover disruptions on church grounds or other private property. However, lawmakers argue these new measures would increase penalties and prohibit additional protest activities such as displaying signs near worship facilities.
The punishments could be more severe than those for trespassing. In certain states, offenders could receive up to one year imprisonment and fines reaching $10,000 for initial violations. These laws also provide states with authority to pursue prosecutions when local officials choose not to.
Thirty-nine individuals, including two journalists, faced charges in February for their involvement in a demonstration during a St. Paul, Minnesota, church service. The demonstrators had discovered that one of the church pastors also served as an official at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement who had been supervising an intensive Minnesota operation.
The U.S. Department of Justice charged the protesters with conspiracy against religious freedom and interfering with the right of religious freedom. The protestors and journalists have pleaded not guilty and the cases are pending in federal court.
Louisiana Rep. Gabe Firment, a Republican, said he was inspired to introduce legislation that allows protestors to be forcibly removed from churches and other places of worship after seeing videos showing the fearful expressions of children at the Minnesota church.
“The first thought that came to my mind was those poor kids,” Firment said. “You certainly have a right to protest, but just like you don’t have the right to come into someone’s home and act like that, you don’t have the right to come into private church property to do that.”
Oklahoma Sen. Todd Gollihare, a Republican, wrote his bill after anti-abortion protestors disrupted his church service last year. His law bars blocking highways within one mile of a service or approaching someone to hand them a flyer within 100 feet of a place of worship.
His Republican colleague, Sen. Kendal Sacchieri, described the law as extreme and said she was afraid of the precedent it would set.
The Nassau County ordinance is already facing a court challenge from the New York Civil Liberties Union, which says there’s no history of residents facing intimidation, harassment or violence outside places of worship — and that the statute denies people their constitutionally protected rights of expression in public places.
Kevin Goldberg, vice president at Freedom Forum, which advocates for First Amendment rights, said that if the laws are challenged in courts, governments would have to show there’s a need for them. “You can’t be guessing, you can’t be speculating,” he said. “There has to be some evidence that there’s an actual threat going on — that there’s been a problem there, that you can reasonably forecast there will be a problem.”
In Louisiana, Democrats raised concerns about mandatory jail time for disrupting services and warned that the laws were too arbitrary, suggesting that they could be applied against a congregant for singing out of turn as a pastor delivers a homily.
“If the spirit just hits me and I start singing during the middle of his homily, and it disrupts his homily in a way where he’s got to say ‘Hey, take a seat’, I mean that would materially disrupt his service and now I’m going to jail for 30 days,” Rep. Edmond Jordan said during a March hearing in the Louisiana Legislature.
The law’s proponents said police officers and judges would have discretion about how to apply the law.
