Inside the Struggle Against Anti-Protest ‘Buffer Zone’ Laws

After months of backroom dealing, Gov. Hochul touted what she called her “buffer zone legislation” which threatens to chill protest and other forms of free speech near houses of worship. While the bill that finally passed isn’t as bad as the Governor’s initial proposal, it is still needless, dangerous, and an affront to our democracy.

On this episode, we discuss this so-called buffer zone legislation and what it does, what it doesn’t do, and how it could impact New Yorkers’ ability to speak out. We also talk about an ongoing NYCLU lawsuit against Long Island’s Nassau County, where an even worse, more aggressive anti-protest zone law is stifling the speech of New Yorkers.

Please download, rate, review, and subscribe to Rights This Way. It will help more people find this podcast.

NOTE: After we recorded, the New York City Council passed the modified anti-protest zone bill related to educational facilities that Naila talks about in this episode.

Resources

New York’s so-called ‘buffer zone law’ explained: NY’s ‘Buffer Zone Law’ Doesn’t Create Protest-Free Areas. But it Could Still Chill Speech

More info on NYC’s previous version of the ‘buffer zone’ legislation: Buffer Zones Only Limit Free Speech

Tell the NYC Council to vote ‘no’! on buffer zones: Take Action

Transcript

Naila: [00:00:00] Let’s be clear. The state did not pass a buffer zone law. And in fact, calling it such threatens to chill speech.

Simon: This is Rights This Way, a podcast from the New York Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of New York State. I’m Simon McCormack, editorial manager at the NYCLU and your host for this podcast, your best listen for the civil rights and liberties issues that impact New Yorkers most.

After months of backroom dealing, Governor Hochul touted what she called her, quote-unquote, “buffer zone legislation,” which threatens to chill protest and other forms of free speech near houses of worship. While the bill that finally passed isn’t as bad as the governor’s initial proposal, it’s still needless, dangerous, and an affront to our democracy.

On this episode, we’ll discuss this so-called buffer zone legislation and what it does, what it doesn’t do, and how it could impact New Yorkers’ ability to speak out. [00:01:00] We’ll also talk about an ongoing NYCLU lawsuit against Long Island’s Nassau County, where an even worse, more aggressive anti-protest zone law is stifling the speech of New Yorkers.

We’ll get into all of that in just a moment, but first, I’d like to ask you to please download, rate, review, and subscribe to Rights This Way. It will help more people find this podcast. And with that, I’d like to welcome two guests. Naila Awan is the co-director of policy at the NYCLU, and JP Perry is a NYCLU senior attorney.

Naila and JP, welcome to Rights This Way.

Naila: Thanks.

Simon: Yeah. It’s great to have you both. Thank you for coming here. And I’ll start with you, Naila. I guess just… Can you just start off by giving us some top level info on, like, what these buffer zone legislation bills are, what they do, what our concerns are?

[00:02:00] We’ve been calling them variously things like no speech zones, you know, anti-protest zones, but they go beyond just being what they’ve been called, which is buffer zones. So, with that, I’ll turn it over to you.

Naila: Yeah, of course. So what we’re seeing described as buffer zone bills are really measures that are seeking to restrict protest or other First Amendment rights within a certain perimeter of covered facilities.

And what those covered facilities are, a lot of times, religious facilities or places of religious worship, of which there are approximately 17,000 in New York State. So the authors of these bills claim that they’re seeking to ensure that people are able to practice their right to religious worship or seek to enter and exit the covered facilities safely.

And of course, we believe at NYCLU, right, that people should be able to practice their faith safely, but we have to be clear about what these measures are. First, they are laws that unconstitutionally restrict First Amendment activity, right? [00:03:00] These proposals, like what we saw popping up in the state, they’re things that could restrict the ability to hold protest marches, restrict the ability to picket for unions, and also restrict the ability for people to protest events that are not about religion or anything else.

And so, like, let’s actually think what that could mean, right? If folks remember a few months back, Rep. Suozzi held a public forum at a synagogue. People showed up there to protest because he had recently voted for ICE funding. Now, if what the Governor had originally proposed was in place, it would’ve said that people could not even show up outside that facility to protest what he was saying.

It would’ve meant that elected officials could hold events at covered facilities, specifically places of religious worship, and they could avoid their constituents who disagree with the points that they have made or, like, the positions that they have taken. Second, there is simply no [00:04:00] record of there being issues with people being able to access places of worship or the other type of facility that the state tried to cover, reproductive health facilities safely across the state.

So there is no record to justify such a sweeping restriction on First Amendment rights as, like, establishing a buffer zone around each of these facilities. And third, these proposals are actually entirely unnecessary when we get down to it. State and federal laws are already in place that provide relief as if a person is being obstructed or intimidated, if they’re trying to access a place of religious worship or a reproductive health facility or in order to practice their religion, or in order to receive or provide reproductive healthcare.

Simon: Okay. And with that broad overview in mind, can you sort of talk about the specific bill that is now law that passed in in New York State? [00:05:00] And if you could talk about sort of, yeah, as you sort of alluded to, the original bill that Governor Hochul proposed and how that differs from what was actually passed and became law.

Naila: Yes, and I’m really glad you asked that question because it’s a real problem how what’s being passed has been framed. Now, certainly the Governor and members of the legislature originally were trying to criminalize protest within a certain proximity of all places of religious worship and reproductive health facilities in the state.

The way that what is passed has been also framed by the Governor and by media is that there have been buffer zones established. That is not what passed. Let’s be clear. The state did not pass a buffer zone law, and in fact, calling it such threatens to chill speech. So what did pass? New York passed a law making criminal interference with access to a place of religious worship a crime.

What that did was actually not change the law in a whole lot of ways. Much of what’s covered under there was actually already [00:06:00] covered under laws that have existed in this state for decades. What it did do, and what is different, is that it prohibits interference or obstruction with a place of religious worship when individuals are trying to enter or exit the facility for any reason, so not just for purposes of practicing their religion.

So this would cover people exiting or entering, not only for public events hosted by elected officials like we mentioned earlier, but also events that really sparked all of this to begin with, which were private real estate events being hosted at synagogues selling Palestinian land. And to be clear, regardless of where we’ve seen these events being held, whether it’s hotels or synagogues or other facilities, there have been protests at them.

But what this law does not do and what it cannot do is limit First Amendment rights, restrict the right to protest or the right to assembly, and the right to gather in public spaces.

Simon: Okay. Thank you for that breakdown [00:07:00] and people like JP will be watching very carefully to see how that bill is actually enforced because we do have concerns there.

But as you point out, Naila, like, it does seem like that is both an improvement on what was originally proposed and pretty different if anyone listening or watching has, like, read any coverage of that bill. Pretty different from what actually passed. So okay, Naila, one more question on this track.

I just want to sort of, I guess, zoom in-ish because we’ve talked state level, but these anti-speech zone laws or bills have been propping up all over the place in the state. Can you talk about… And I just wanna say, we’ll talk about New York City in some depth in a little bit, but beyond New York City, can you talk about where else these have been popping up?

Naila: Sure. So obviously we saw buffer zone proposals advanced at the state. We also saw a [00:08:00] law pass in Nassau County, which JP will be discussing more about, and we saw similar legislation advanced, although it then stalled or got pulled, in Suffolk and Onondaga Counties. What I think is very troubling, and what I think is worth noting, is that regardless of what side of the political aisle we’re seeing executives on, what we keep seeing is that when it comes to free speech and when it comes to protest, there are similar antagonistic positions that are being taken by them.

And, you know, an example of this, for instance, is we were talking about the state. Governor Hochul has been supportive of a buffer zone proposal. Similarly, in Nassau County, Bruce Blakeman advanced a similar proposal. What we have seen consistently over the past couple of years is that these two individuals are actually advancing the same sorts of proposals when it comes to restricting free speech and restricting protest.

Last year that happened when it came to mask bans [00:09:00] targeting protesters, and this year, the flavor of the year is buffer zones.

Simon: Yeah and just for people who might not be aware, Bruce Blakeman and Governor Hochul are gonna be facing off in the gubernatorial elections later in November. So this could have been an opportunity for Hochul to draw a distinction from Bruce Blakeman who has close, you know, Trump ties.

But in this instance, as you said, it doesn’t seem like that’s the tack she’s taking. So with that, JP, let’s talk Nassau County. Nassau County has a particularly aggressive law on the books that is an anti-speech law. Can you talk about what it says, what it does, and what our concerns are?

JP: Yes, Simon, and that’s right. It’s completely accurate to say that Nassau County’s law is particularly aggressive. It is distinct from the other laws that have passed so far on the state level and at New York City because it restricts nearly [00:10:00] all free speech and assembly activity within certain distances outside of nearly 1,000 places of worship in Nassau County.

So it really has had and is having a huge impact, and it’s the most extreme version of this law that we have on the books right now in New York State, which is why we, the NYCLU, chose to sue to stop the law from being enforced. So the Nassau buffer law, as we call it, also known as Local Law 6-2025 or the Religious Safety Act, it passed in December of last year, went into effect in January of this year, and it does a couple of things.

One provision of the law prohibits anybody from engaging in nearly all forms of First Amendment activity within 35 feet of any entrance to any place of worship. That also, entrance is defined as not just a front entrance, it could be a side entrance. It’s really any entrance or [00:11:00] exit. It also applies to driveways and parking lot entrances and exits, which is relevant in Nassau County where people, it’s a suburban area, in many areas, people drive all the time.

In addition to the 35-foot buffer zone that’s in effect outside of places of worship, it also prohibits anybody from knowingly approaching another person within 10 feet of the other person for purposes of oral advocacy or virtually most other types of First Amendment forms of expression.

And somebody is prohibited from doing that within 100 feet from the entrance to or exit from a place of worship. The law’s in effect. There’s a time limit on it. It’s in effect one hour before a… It could be a religious event or it could be a community meeting or community event or educational activity.

It could be a political meeting that’s happening inside a place of worship. So it applies pretty [00:12:00] broadly in terms of what’s happening inside the place of worship, and I think a lot of us know that oftentimes in New York, across the country, places of worship are just as much community events and meeting spaces as they are actually places of worship.

So we have to be thinking more broadly about the wide impact this is having. So the time limit is one hour before, during, then one hour after, and that’s essentially what is prohibited.

Simon: Got it. And so basically if there’s any event going on at a house of worship, you can’t be protesting within 100 feet, you can’t be leafletting.

Is that right? Am I right about that?

JP: That’s right, Simon. Okay. That’s right. You can’t, you know, when I talk about First Amendment protected expression, that applies to a lot of different things. That applies to holding up a sign, leafletting, protesting, handing out a flyer. It could apply to sort of like speaking more generally.

So it has a pretty, pretty wide impact on what people can and [00:13:00] can’t do.

Simon: Yikes. Okay. Well, so with that, let’s talk about our lawsuit that you mentioned that we filed, that you are one of the attorneys working on our case. What is our argument? And, you know, and then certainly, I’m sure you’ll bring up some legal terms since it is a lawsuit, but, you know, just in broad everyday speak, what’s our argument?

And then why do you think we have a good case here?

JP: So we’re representing two Catholic women, Claudia Berecki and Maria Theresa Thierry. They’re longtime Nassau residents who are really active in the Nassau County community. They engage in all sorts of types of, have historically engaged in lots of protest activity, but also, um, you know, Ms. Berecki runs a number of organizations. They’ve hosted, they hosted a vigil for Rene Good, for example. She’s very involved in civic activities throughout Nassau County. Both of our plaintiffs wanted to do a leafletting action outside of specific [00:14:00] Catholic churches in Nassau County because they wanted to convince churchgoers and church leaders to adopt a pro-immigrant stance.

You know, as we all know, we’re in a time in this country where our immigrant neighbors are under attack. That is happening in a really pronounced way in Nassau County, and so there’s a lot of urgency to the type of activism they want to engage in, specifically at these Catholic churches. When the Nassau buffer law was passed, they felt like they could not engage in that activity without facing arrest and criminal prosecution.

So they have not been able to do the advocacy they want to do because of this law. We filed what’s called a preliminary injunction in court asking the federal court out in Nassau County to strike down this law and to prohibit its enforcement so that our plaintiffs and others like them can get out, go on the streets, speak out about the important issues of the day without fear of arrest, either because they’re doing so outside of a place of worship or because they’re trying to engage [00:15:00] in a walking march that might pass by a place of worship.

If you go to, you know, let’s say a more urban area in Nassau County like Hempstead, there are, in certain streets, there are storefront churches and places of worship just right up, right along the sidewalk. You could just be walking and pass them and maybe not even know you’re passing a place of worship, and you could get charged with this law because of it.

So it’s really chilling speech in Nassau County in a pretty extreme way, and we’re hoping to get a decision from the court soon so that people can get out.

Simon: We’ll get back to the show in just a moment, but first, if you’ve been enjoying the podcast and wanna support our work, check out our merch store at shop.nyclu.org.

We have a great selection of items perfect for listeners like you. Our store line lets you tell the world what you think and who you support, whether you’re marching in the streets or arguing about politics with your extended family. And right now, you can get 20% off your order with promo code [00:16:00] PODCAST20. That’s 20% off with promo code PODCAST20 at shop.nyclu.org. Thanks, and now back to the show.

Yeah, and so it’s not just Nassau, it’s not just the state, and it’s not just, you know, red or purple areas. It’s places like New York City, which are at least thought of as to be, you know, liberal bastions of political affiliation, et cetera.

But New York City also has a form of this type of legislation. So Naila, can you talk about New York City’s sort of sordid recent history with this sort of legislation? I know there’s, like, a lot of different versions. I’ll just turn it over to you. But yeah, New York City buffer zones.

Naila: Yeah, it feels like it’s a rollercoaster that none of us can get off of right now. But, so in New York City at the beginning of this year, what we really saw were two bills advanced that would establish no protest zones. One required the NYPD to come up with a plan to [00:17:00] establish no protest zones, which the bills referred to as security perimeters and are more accurately known as frozen zones, outside of places of religious worship and educational facilities.

So these bills are actually framing the right to protest and protest activity as a security threat at a moment when we’re seeing the federal government really trying to attack and suppress protesters. Both bills were passed by the City Council, the place of religious worship bill with a veto-proof majority, and the educational facility bill without one.

The place of religious worship bill has become law. We’re currently waiting to see what the NYPD’s plan will look like there. The educational facility bill was vetoed by the Mayor. The City Council was unable, despite its best efforts, to secure enough votes to overturn that veto. And I’ll note the educational facility bill was actually written so broadly initially [00:18:00] as to take in daycares, K-to-12 schools, colleges and universities, but beyond that, any place that provides any sort of educational programming.

So what’s that mean? That means libraries. That means museums. That means where you go for your pottery or your dance classes. It means job training facilities, teaching hospitals, your local Y, and many, many more facilities. Who knows how many places this would’ve actually touched in New York City? So that bill’s now been reintroduced, and they’ve narrowed what facilities are covered, specifically now it’s K-to-8 public and private, and then private high schools. But notably, the bill did nothing to address the broader concerns many raised about it, and I’ll say we were one of over 100 groups representing a broad array of constituencies that weighed in against these bills.

And some of the concerns that were raised were that, one, these bills will [00:19:00] encourage increased law enforcement presence around our city’s schools. That’s a concern when at a moment when, as JP noted, our immigrant communities are under attack, when parents and immigrant children are scared to go to school, that we’re now talking about increasing law enforcement presence there.

It’s also something that’ll increase the likelihood that students get pushed into the school-to-prison pipeline.

It also has the potential to undermine the NYPD’s 2024 protest settlement that it entered into with NYCLU and Legal Aid. JP was one of the litigators on this case and can certainly speak to it much better than I can.

But, you know, that protest was entered into based on the NYPD’s brutalizing of protesters during 2020 BLM actions, and it requires that police presence at protests and demonstrations be minimized. And then also there’s a real concern that it’ll be enforced in a manner that discriminates against people [00:20:00] based on the viewpoints being expressed. So now we’re in this fight again.

They’ve just started to try to move this forward, and we expect that they’re going to try to vote on that bill around June 29th.

Simon: Okay. So we still have concerns about that. The short version is: different, but still bad. Okay. And I just want to… And both of you have touched on this, but I just want to underscore too that, you know, in, in addition to immigrant rights advocates, immigrants themselves, we’re also just in a time where, you know, President Trump is doing a multitude of things, you know, nearly every day that are worthy of protest.

There are things going on locally that are worthy of protest. There have been millions of New Yorkers in the state and also, you know, nationwide Americans have come and protested in things like the No Kings marches and [00:21:00] pro-immigrant marches and anti-war marches. So it’s never a good time to erect barriers to free speech and protest, but, you know, especially now, you know, with fascism creeping forward and, you know, any word you, you know, could use to describe the toxic political environment we exist in right now, not a good time in particular to be advancing this legislation, I think we would argue so and have argued.

So, okay, with that, I’ll get off my soapbox there and turn it over to you, JP, with: there are surely good faith people out there who hear things like they want people to be able to practice their faith. They want people to feel safe as they go into their house of worship. They want students to be able to go into school without feeling threatened, et cetera.

I’m just curious for your take, JP. I’ll start with you. What do you think are some of the, like, [00:22:00] misconceptions here that maybe could lead some people who might, if they knew the full scope of these laws and bills and proposals, wouldn’t be in favor of them, but might if they just hear, you know, a couple sentences about them?

JP: Listen, people have concerns about safely accessing places of worship, about safely accessing their schools, school facilities. We don’t disagree with that. Of course, we agree that people should be able to practice their religion safely. People have a constitutional right to practicing their religion.

And, you know, there are many laws that, as Naila was mentioning, are already on the books that protect that safe access to worship. We support that. These laws don’t do that. They don’t accomplish that. They don’t make people safer. And the titles of the laws, you know, things like the Religious Safety Act, are misleading because they make people think, “Well, of course, this is about religious safety, and people should be able to go, and of course they should be able to practice their religion.”

That’s not something that we [00:23:00] disagree with, and the law supports that. What we have an issue with and what these laws do is they, in the name of religious safety, they are chilling wide amounts of speech and expressive activity, so they’re not really doing what they seek out to do. They’re not making people safer, and they’re having a detrimental effect actually on people coming out and speaking out in this moment where many of our communities don’t feel safe.

You know, our immigrant neighbors don’t feel safe. Our, you know, our trans neighbors don’t feel safe with what is happening on federal and at the local level right now. So it’s really paramount that these laws not get passed in the name of safety when they’re just actually making our communities less safe.

Naila: Yeah, and one thing I’ll just add, too, that I found notable is that, you know, last week they actually had a hearing on the educational facility bill in New York City, the revised one. And the NYPD [00:24:00] protested, or the NYPD, sorry, not protested, testified there. And what they made clear was that they were aware of no record in recent history where there had been any issues related to First Amendment activity outside of K-to-12 schools that had prevented students from safely entering or exiting these schools.

So really what we’re dealing with here is an effort to create a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

Simon: And with that, I think my last question to both of you, and JP I’ll go to you first, if people are listening or watching and they are convinced that these, you know, no speech bills and laws are a problem and they want to try to advocate against them, what should they, what should they do? What can they do?

JP: There’s a lot of things they can do. You know, for, I think that they could write to their local lawmakers, contact their local lawmakers, say, “We do not support this. This is not what is making our community safer.” And, you know, [00:25:00] standing out and speaking up. I mean, I think those are the most important things that people can do.

Naila: Yeah, I mean, I would just reiterate that point. I will say that there has been really a sort of significant and coordinated effort by folks who are supporting these bills to do outreach, and what we consistently hear from electeds is we need to be hearing from folks on the other side. So folks should be calling their electeds, their representatives, even those people who are right now campaigning for your votes, and letting them know where you stand on these issues.

Simon: Yeah. And I will say anyone listening who is on our email list should have received about a zillion buffer zone pieces of legislation, so please, if you haven’t, sign up. But yes, please, totally. You’ve got to contact your lawmaker because I totally believe that dynamic, that they’re just hearing nonstop from proponents of these bills, and one way to kind of even the ledger and make sure that lawmakers are aware that this is a problem is through you [00:26:00] listeners and viewers.

So with that, JP, Naila, thank you so much for coming on Rights This Way.

JP: Thank you.

Naila: Yeah, thanks for having us.

Simon: Thank you for listening. You can find more on everything we talked about in this episode by visiting NYCLU.org, and you can follow us at NYCLU on YouTube, Instagram, BlueSky, and Facebook. Until next time, I’m Simon McCormack.

Thank you for fighting with us to deliver more liberty and justice to all New Yorkers.