Congress considers 100-foot worship access zones nationwide

Congress is considering a bipartisan proposal that would create a 100-foot federal protection zone around houses of worship during scheduled religious services. The Right to Worship Act would add civil fines and private lawsuits for specified conduct that disrupts services or deters worshippers from entering, but it has not become law.

H.R. 10052 was introduced in the House on August 6, 2026, by Rep. Brad Knott, R-N.C., with Reps. Thomas Suozzi, D-N.Y., Michael Lawler, R-N.Y., and Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., as cosponsors. The Senate companion, S. 5289, was introduced the same day by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, with Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., as cosponsor. Both bills were referred to their respective Judiciary Committees. As of August 29, neither has received a recorded floor vote, cleared committee, been enacted or created a current federal restriction.

What the proposed zone would cover

The introduced House text would apply to a course of conduct that substantially affects interstate commerce and occurs within 100 feet of any pedestrian or vehicular entryway to a house of worship. The proposed period would begin one hour before the start of a scheduled religious service and end one hour after its conclusion. It would not operate continuously.

The bill defines a house of worship as a property or other space that religious adherents collectively recognize, or religious leadership designates, as a place where people routinely or regularly gather for religious services. A religious service includes collective worship or prayer, a class, or another event where people gather to worship, study or otherwise exercise their religion.

The measure would make it unlawful to knowingly disrupt a scheduled service or knowingly impede people from participating. Under the text, disruption means conduct that meaningfully interferes with participation and causes a substantial interruption to the service’s normal operation. Impeding means unreasonably hindering or deterring entry, or threatening or intimidating someone in a way that prevents participation.

The bill says disruption would be judged by the manner in which conduct is carried out, including its volume, duration, pervasiveness, frequency and impact, rather than by the content of speech or expression. It also says the provision should not be read to bar a person from speaking on any subject when the speech complies with the proposed time, place and manner restrictions, or to bar activities covered by a government-issued permit.

How enforcement would work

The proposal would authorize civil fines assessed by the attorney general of $2,500 for a first offense, $5,000 for a second offense and $10,000 per occurrence for a third or later offense.

Any person aggrieved by a violation could sue in federal court. A court could award temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and expert-witness costs. A plaintiff could elect statutory damages of $5,000 per violation instead of actual damages.

The U.S. attorney general could bring a civil action when there is reasonable cause to believe a person is being, has been or may be injured by covered conduct. State attorneys general could bring similar actions on behalf of residents. In an attorney general action, the bill would allow injunctions and compensatory damages; when actual damages are absent, a court could assess a $5,000 civil penalty per violation to vindicate the public interest.

Why supporters back the bills

Supporters describe the measure as a way to protect access to worship when demonstrations or other conduct become threatening, intimidating or substantially disruptive. In statements announcing the legislation, the sponsors said people should not have to fear entering synagogues, mosques, churches or other houses of worship.

The Anti-Defamation League supports the proposal and argues that congregants should be able to attend services without harassment, intimidation or disruptive demonstrations. Other faith organizations, including the Orthodox Union, have also endorsed the legislation.

Why the proposal raises free-speech questions

The central dispute is whether a fixed 100-foot zone would burden more protected speech and assembly than necessary, even though the bill is written to focus on the manner and effects of conduct rather than the message being expressed.

The American Civil Liberties Union has raised that broader concern in opposition to proposed New York buffer zones. The cited ACLU material is not a direct statement about H.R. 10052 or S. 5289, so it does not establish the organization’s formal position on these federal bills.

A likely constitutional reference point is the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in McCullen v. Coakley. That case involved a fixed buffer zone around abortion clinics, not houses of worship. The Court held that Massachusetts’ law burdened substantially more speech than necessary, making narrow tailoring and the availability of less restrictive alternatives likely issues if Congress passes this proposal and it is challenged.

What happens next

The next meaningful signal will be whether the House or Senate Judiciary Committee schedules a hearing, markup or other action. Until Congress passes the legislation and it survives any legal challenge, worshippers and houses of worship do not have the proposed federal remedies, and protesters remain governed by existing laws and constitutional protections.

The measure therefore sets up a national debate rather than an immediate change at houses of worship. Its supporters see a targeted way to protect religious access; opponents are likely to focus on whether a fixed zone around public entrances leaves enough room for constitutionally protected speech.

Sources

Look for updates to this story

Discover more from Interactive News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.