In recent weeks, the intersection of protest, religious freedom, and reproductive rights has landed squarely in the spotlight, as federal and state authorities grapple with the boundaries of protected speech and the reach of state laws across borders. Two high-profile legal battles—one in New Jersey involving synagogue access and another in New York over abortion pill prescriptions—highlight the complex web of rights, statutes, and political passions shaping the nation’s current legal landscape.
Last week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a civil rights lawsuit against a group of protesters who surrounded a New Jersey synagogue during an anti-Israel demonstration, accusing them of using force and obstruction to prevent Jewish worshippers from entering. According to the Jewish Journal, this complaint marks the first time the DOJ has taken such action against protesters in this context, describing a chaotic scene in which demonstrators pushed past police barricades, entered synagogue property, and forced congregants to flee indoors for safety.
This legal action is not isolated. A separate lawsuit against the activist group CodePink is still unfolding after a June 23, 2024, protest outside Los Angeles’ Adas Torah Synagogue allegedly turned violent, leaving worshippers unable to enter or leave freely due to the turmoil outside. Both cases are being prosecuted under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act), a federal statute originally enacted in 1994 to protect access to abortion clinics, but later amended to safeguard places of religious worship as well.
The FACE Act makes it illegal to use “force, threat of force or physical obstruction” to “intentionally injure, intimidate or interfere with” anyone seeking to enter a reproductive-health facility or a place of religious worship. The law’s extension to synagogues, churches, and mosques was championed by then-Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who called it a matter of “fairness,” ensuring people of faith received the same protections as those seeking medical care. For three decades, federal courts have consistently upheld the FACE Act as constitutional and content-neutral, emphasizing its focus on conduct—such as blocking doors or issuing threats—rather than the content of protest speech itself.
“Force” and “threat of force” under the statute capture assaults and true threats, while “physical obstruction” refers to making entry or exit impassable or unreasonably difficult. As the Jewish Journal notes, the law is designed to ensure people can reach a clinic or a synagogue without being physically prevented or placed in reasonable fear of harm. Courts and legal scholars have interpreted the law’s neutrality as protecting both sides of contentious debates—abortion providers and pro-life advocates alike—so long as the conduct does not cross the line into coercion or violence.
Yet, critics worry that deploying the FACE Act against anti-Israel demonstrations could chill constitutionally protected protest. The DOJ’s complaint in New Jersey alleges that demonstrators forced their way past police barricades, entered synagogue property, physically assaulted attendees, and created an environment so threatening that it impeded access to religious services. The government also cited a letter delivered to a synagogue leader’s home, accompanied by photographs of his residence and later posts publicizing his address. While the letter’s language may not constitute a direct threat, the DOJ argues it forms part of a larger campaign of coercion, especially when viewed alongside the surrounding violence.
Legal experts stress that the FACE Act’s terms—particularly “intimidate” and “interfere”—require careful application to avoid criminalizing legitimate protest. Congress anticipated this risk, instructing that the Act “shall be construed and applied” consistently with the First Amendment. Federal courts have honored that limit, applying the statute narrowly to conduct that genuinely coerces or threatens, not mere advocacy or unwelcome persuasion.
The ongoing Adas Torah litigation in Los Angeles exemplifies this approach. There, protesters allegedly blocked driveways, pounded on vehicles, and clashed with police as congregants tried to attend a religious event. The federal district court dismissed claims against one group whose social-media posts merely called for protest but allowed the claim against CodePink to proceed. The court found that CodePink’s post, which displayed the synagogue’s name and address within an inverted red triangle—a symbol reportedly used by Hamas to mark targets—could plausibly be seen as a “threat of force” intended to intimidate worshippers or incite obstruction. The court thus applied the FACE Act as Congress intended, targeting coercive conduct while safeguarding protest rights.
Meanwhile, in New York, a different front in the legal battle over access and protest is playing out. On October 6, 2025, New York Attorney General Letitia James intervened in a landmark case involving a New York physician accused of prescribing abortion pills via telehealth to a patient in Collin County, Texas. According to NBC News, James sent a letter to a state Supreme Court judge in Ulster County, invoking her authority to defend New York’s “shield law.” This 2023 statute prohibits state officials from cooperating with investigations into New York providers who offer out-of-state abortions.
The case originated when Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Dr. Margaret Daley Carpenter, claiming she violated Texas’ near-total abortion ban and a law requiring physicians performing abortions in Texas to hold a Texas medical license. Carpenter, a founder of the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine, was previously ordered by a Texas judge to pay over $100,000 in penalties. However, a county clerk in Ulster County, New York, refused to enforce the fine, citing the shield law. In response, Paxton sued the clerk, challenging the constitutionality of New York’s law. This prompted James to step in, declaring, “Texas has no authority in New York, and no power to impose its cruel abortion ban here.”
The legal battle is among the first major challenges to New York’s shield law and comes as the country faces growing divides over reproductive care following the fall of Roe v. Wade. James’ office plans to file written arguments asserting that Texas cannot use New York courts to enforce its abortion laws, and that New York has the right to protect its residents and health care providers. The same physician is also facing criminal charges in Louisiana for allegedly sending abortion pills to a teenager, with Louisiana officials seeking her extradition—a request denied by New York Governor Kathy Hochul, again citing the shield law.
These cases have significant implications. According to the UCLA Law’s Center on Reproductive Health, Law and Policy, 22 states and Washington, D.C., have shield laws offering some protection for reproductive care. Eight states, including New York, California, Colorado, and Maine, specifically protect providers prescribing abortion pills virtually to people in other states. The outcomes of these lawsuits could set pivotal precedents for how courts interpret shield laws amid mounting legal challenges from states with restrictive abortion policies.
The tension is mounting nationwide. In July, 16 Republican state attorneys general sent a letter to Congress urging action to pre-empt abortion shield laws. The Texas Senate recently passed a bill allowing private residents to sue out-of-state providers who provide abortion pills to people in Texas, with Governor Greg Abbott expected to sign it into law.
Both the DOJ’s synagogue-access lawsuit and New York’s defense of its shield law underscore the delicate balancing act between safeguarding access—whether to religious worship or reproductive care—and protecting the right to protest. As these legal battles unfold, courts and lawmakers are being forced to redraw the boundaries of state authority, personal freedom, and federal oversight in an era of deepening polarization. The outcomes could shape the contours of American rights for years to come.
