Opposition to Protest Buffer Zone Proposals

SUMMARY

The Civil Rights Committee (Evan Henley, Co-Chair), Sex and the Law Committee (Natalie Birnbaum and Susan E. Cersovsky, Co-Chairs) and the LGBQTQ Committee (Jared Trujillio, and Hayley Gorenberg, Co-Chairs) issued a letter opposing the proposed “protest buffer zone” legislation in New York (FY2027 Executive Budget Part K and S.8599/A.9335), arguing that it is overly broad and likely unconstitutional despite its stated goal of protecting public safety at houses of worship and reproductive health care facilities. While the legislation responds to concerns about harassment, antisemitic incidents, and interference with abortion access, the City Bar contends that existing federal, state, and local laws already adequately address threats, intimidation, obstruction, and disorderly conduct without restricting protected speech.

The report argues that the proposed 25-foot buffer zones would, in practice, significantly restrict speech on public sidewalks, especially in dense urban areas, by limiting activities such as leafleting, sign-holding, and peaceful conversations even when no obstruction occurs. It also warns that expanding the Clinic Access Law in this way could undermine an existing constitutionally sound framework and invite legal challenges under First Amendment precedent, including McCullen v. Coakley. Finally, the committee raised concerns that the law would grant broad discretion to law enforcement, increasing the risk of selective or viewpoint-based enforcement, and concluded that the proposals are not narrowly tailored and should be rejected.

BILL INFORMATION

A.9335 (AM Lasher) / S.8599 (Sen. Sutton)- An act to amend the penal law, in relation to certain crimes of interference with health care services or religious worship. (NYS 2025-26)

A.10005-A / S.90005-A– Enacts into law major components of legislation necessary to implement the state public protection and general government budget for the 2026-2027 state fiscal year. (NYS 2025-26)

OUTCOME

Adopted as part of the FY 2027 NYS Budget

REPORT

REPORT ON LEGISLATION BY THE CIVIL RIGHTS COMMITTEE,
SEX AND THE LAW COMMITTEE, AND THE
LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER, QUEER COMMITTEE

A.9335 (M. of A. Lasher) / S.8599 (Sen. Sutton)

– and –

A.10005-A / S.9005-A Budget Article VII Legislation, Public Protection and General Government – Part K

AN ACT to amend the penal law, in relation to certain crimes of interference with health care services or religious worship

THESE BILLS ARE OPPOSED

The New York City Bar Association (the “City Bar”) urges the Legislature and Governor Hochul to reject the “protest buffer zone” provisions contained in Part K of the Fiscal Year 2027 Public Protection and General Government (PPPG) Executive Budget bill (“Part K”), as well as A.9335 (AM Lasher) / S.8599 (Sen. Sutton).

The proposed legislation was introduced in response to protests last year outside the Park East Synagogue in Manhattan which included chants such as “Death to the IDF.”^[1] The proposals stem from the desire to increase public safety, particularly in light of a stark rise in antisemitic incidents^[2] and the continued targeting of abortion seekers by bad actors. Under certain circumstances, activities occurring at or near religious institutions or reproductive health clinics may also implicate constitutional protections including the rights to free association, exercise of religion, and abortion access.

Public safety is a central concern and essential for keeping our communities safe and vibrant and can be served with existing State and City laws. In fact, in March 2026, the New York City Council also passed a series of bills to regulate protests outside schools and houses of worship.^[3] However, the proposed legislation is overly broad and imposes sweeping restrictions on peaceful protests and ordinary political expression in public spaces and invites over-policing and selective enforcement.

As a result, the proposals are constitutionally suspect. Indeed, passing either proposal would inevitably invite costly litigation for the state. Moreover, it would chill speech guaranteed by the First Amendment and the state constitution, which is even more expansive of free expression.^[4] Critically, by incorporating constitutionally vulnerable speech restrictions into the existing Clinic Access Law—the state statute that prohibits intimidation and harassment at reproductive health care facilities—the Legislature risks jeopardizing the protections that courts have already upheld.^[5]

For the reasons elucidated below, the Legislature and Governor Hochul must reject the ‘buffer zone” proposals in their current form.

I. THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION WOULD RESTRICT SPEECH ON PUBLIC SIDEWALKS

The proposed legislation would create protest-free zones around houses of worship and reproductive health care facilities. These zones would limit individuals’ ability to engage in protest, distribute literature, or speak with people entering or leaving these locations, even when those individuals are standing on nearby public sidewalks.

Although the proposal is described as establishing a twenty-five-foot buffer zone, the distance is measured from surrounding streets and sidewalks rather than solely from facility entrances. In practice, this approach may extend the restricted area well beyond twenty-five feet and could encompass substantial portions of nearby sidewalks, intersections, and other public thoroughfares. This effect would be particularly pronounced in densely populated areas, where places of worship and health care facilities are often located in close proximity to one another.

The legislation also broadly defines prohibited demonstrations. As drafted, the restriction applies to gatherings of two or more people within the designated area. As a result, even small groups engaged in peaceful advocacy, silent protest, or informal conversation could fall within the scope of the prohibition.

In operation, the proposed legislation would restrict a wide range of ordinary expressive activity in public spaces, including leafleting, holding signs, and attempting to engage passersby in conversation about matters of public concern.

II. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT JEOPARDIZES THE EXISTING CLINIC ACCESS LAW

Existing law provides constitutionally sound protections against violence, intimidation, and interference with access to reproductive health care facilities.^[6] Federal, state, and local laws prohibit obstruction, threats, harassment, and disorderly conduct, and those provisions have been upheld because they are carefully directed at harmful conduct.^[7]

The proposed legislation would fundamentally alter that balance. By incorporating broad restrictions on expressive activity in public spaces into the Clinic Access Law, the Legislature would transform a conduct-based statute into one that directly regulates protected speech on public sidewalks. As drafted, the proposal would prohibit a wide range of peaceful activities, including leafleting, quiet conversation, and other non-obstructive advocacy, regardless of whether it interferes with access or safety.

This shift creates concrete constitutional risk. Sidewalks are traditional public forums, where restrictions on speech must be narrowly targeted.^[8] Laws that burden substantially more speech than necessary are vulnerable to challenge.^[9] In McCullen v. Coakley, the Supreme Court invalidated a buffer zone law around reproductive health care facilities because it restricted peaceful advocacy and failed to rely on less restrictive alternatives, including enforcement of existing laws.^[10] The same concerns are present here. The proposed legislation imposes broad, fixed restrictions on speech without demonstrating that current legal tools are inadequate.

As a result, these proposals create a risk that the law could be challenged as overbroad or insufficiently tailored.^[11]

While the current clinic protection laws in New York State do not prevent protestors from disrupting services, intimidating patients for all reproductive healthcare services, abortion seekers, and disrupting neighborhoods,^[12] since their enactment, they have improved the ability for abortion seekers to safely access care at brick-and-mortar clinics in New York. In practical terms, introducing constitutional vulnerabilities could jeopardize a framework that has already been upheld.

III. BUFFER ZONES CAN CREATE A RISK OF SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT

The proposed legislation would also expand law enforcement’s role in regulating peaceful protest.

Across the country, laws restricting protest have sometimes been enforced unevenly, particularly when demonstrations involve controversial political issues. When laws give authorities broad discretion to decide when and where protests may occur, there is a significant risk that enforcement will fall more heavily on speakers expressing unpopular or controversial viewpoints.^[13]

This concern is particularly relevant today, when protests related to immigration, international conflict, racial justice, and LGBTQ+ equality have increasingly been the subject of enforcement actions.

The First Amendment views laws that give authorities broad discretion to regulate speech as suspect.^[14] When enforcement decisions depend on how officials interpret protests or political demonstrations, the risk of uneven or viewpoint-based enforcement increases significantly. Thus, New York must be cautious about adopting legal frameworks that expand police discretion to regulate peaceful political expression.

Although the bill is written in content‑neutral terms, laws that single out speech near particular institutions can raise enforcement concerns if, in practice, officials must evaluate the subject of a protest to determine whether conduct constitutes “interference” or “harassment.” Courts are wary of enforcement regimes that drift into content‑based or viewpoint‑based application.^[15]

IV. CONCLUSION

Protecting individuals from harassment, intimidation, and violence is an important governmental responsibility. But the Constitution requires that laws addressing those harms be carefully targeted to avoid suppressing peaceful political expression.

The proposed buffer zone legislation would broadly restrict speech on public sidewalks, burden substantially more expression than necessary, and create risks of selective enforcement based on the subject of a protest. Courts have repeatedly invalidated similar restrictions on peaceful advocacy in public spaces.

For these reasons, the proposal raises serious First Amendment concerns, in addition to the policy concerns discussed above.

The New York City Bar Association therefore respectfully urges the Legislature to reject the buffer zone provisions contained in the FY2027 Executive Budget and S.8599/A.9335.

Civil Rights Committee
Evan Henley, Co-Chair

Sex and Law Committee
Natalie Birnbaum, Co-Chair
Susan E. Cersovsky, Co-Chair

LGBTQ+ Committee
Jared Trujillio, Co-Chair
Hayley Gorenberg, Co-Chair

April 2026