A federal judge in Brooklyn temporarily blocked a recently passed law in Nassau County, N.Y., that prohibits protests near houses of worship as likely unconstitutional.
The preliminary injunction order sides with two Nassau County long-time residents who are likely to prevail in their lawsuit to stop implementation of the buffer zone law that bars people from demonstrating, distributing literature, displaying signs, or engaging in “oral advocacy” or other forms of “symbolic conduct” within 35 feet of an entrance or driveway to a religious institution. It also prohibits demonstrators located in a 100-foot bubble around the house of worship from knowingly approaching another person within 10 feet without their consent.
Judge Sanket J. Bulsara of the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York agreed with the county that the law serves an important government interest, but he said it “flunks the narrow tailoring” test, which in part says a law shouldn’t burden more speech than is necessary to further that government interest.
The law “imposes restrictions on such speech essentially without limitation as to time, and in some places over sidewalks and public streets,” Bulsara said June 18, blocking the law pending litigation on the merits.
The lawsuit marked the first challenge of “buffer zones” outside of churches, synagogues, mosques, and other places of worship in New York.
The 35-foot buffer law is an “unprecedented” law that “prohibits all expressive or symbolic conduct in that perimeter, including the most basic First Amendment activity, like wearing a t-shirt that contains a political, religious, or symbolic message of any kind,” Bulsara said.
The ruling “should put lawmakers across the state on high alert: unjustified and unnecessary buffer zones are illegal, and won’t hold up in court,” JP Perry, senior staff attorney at the New York Civil Liberties Union, said in a press release.
The ruling is a loss, for now, for Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman (R), the GOP nominee for governor.
Blakeman said the injunction “was wrongfully issued based on the law and facts of this case. There is no likelihood of success on the merits as freedom of religion under the constitution is a guaranteed right and freedom of speech was not abridged.”
‘Broad Suppression’
The law’s goal is to allow people to attend religious services and other events at places of worship without harassment. Violators face misdemeanor criminal penalties and risk up to one year of imprisonment or a fine of up to $250.
Plaintiffs Claudia Borecky and Mariateresa Thiery planned to advocate on behalf of immigrants on public sidewalks outside of nine churches throughout the county, and speak with parishioners about religious teachings and their support for immigrant communities.
Borecky and Thiery, who say their advocacy work is consistent with their Catholic faith, argue the law’s stated purpose is inconsistent with its broad sweep and infringes on core First Amendment activity. They fear they’ll be arrested if they go forward with their plan.
The legislative record “is sparse,” Bulsara said. Lawmakers who supported it cited murders in other jurisdictions that didn’t involve protests, leafletting, or discussions with parishioners. The legislative record and factual evidence in support of the law is virtually non-existent, and the county hasn’t provided testimony from religious leaders or congregants who felt intimidated, threatened, or unsafe because of protest activity, the judge added.
There are approximately 980 places of worship throughout Nassau County, Bulsara said, pointing to a report and map by the NYCLU, which represents the plaintiffs. The map shows that in Hempstead, where there are 34 places of worship in just one area, the density of those places with the buffer zone provisions threatens to make entire public streets off limits for any of the prohibited activities, the judge said.
The law “imposes nothing less than ‘severe burdens’ on Plaintiffs’ activities,” Bulsara said. Nassau County’s “interests in protecting religious freedom and public safety are insufficiently linked to the imposition of such broad suppression,” he added.
If the goal was to avoid intimidation, violence, or threatening speech, the county could’ve drafted a law criminalizing that conduct, Bulsara said. It didn’t need to also ban peaceful speech and information distribution on public streets that “amounts to the ‘extreme step of closing a substantial portion of a traditional public forum to all speakers.’”
No Alternatives
Bulsara agreed with the plaintiffs that the buffer provision leaves no alternative options through which they can communicate their message. The 35-foot distance impedes, if not eliminates, their ability to engage in one-on-one conversations.
The county’s suggested alternatives—including that the plaintiffs leaflet during hours when there are no services or stand stationary within the 100-foot bubble zone—are inadequate and “force Plaintiffs to modify their message, methods, and intended audience,” Bulsara said.
The county failed to provide a good reason for having both a buffer zone and bubble provision, the judge said.
NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D) in April vetoed a law that, similar to the Nassau County buffer zone statute, would allow police to set up security perimeters around churches. The NYC Council passed the legislation in March, citing a rise in antisemitic incidents nationwide and heightened concerns about safety around religious institutions.
Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) in May signed a law that establishes a 50-foot buffer zone around places of worship, making it a crime to interfere with anyone seeking to enter or exit such a place.
The case is Borecky v. Cnty. of Nassau, E.D.N.Y., No. 2:26-cv-02049, 6/18/26.