Thursday, October 1, 2026
A federal judge has blocked enforcement of Nassau County’s Religious Safety Act, ruling that key provisions of the law likely violate First Amendment protections and issuing a preliminary injunction against the measure while a legal challenge proceeds.
In a 63-page decision issued June 18, U.S. District Judge Sanket J. Bulsara found that the county’s law, enacted in January, likely infringes on constitutionally protected speech by restricting expressive activity near houses of worship.
The lawsuit was brought by Nassau County residents Claudia Borecky and Mariateresa Thiery, who argued that the law prevented them from peacefully distributing literature and speaking with churchgoers about immigration issues and their Catholic faith.
Borecky, president of the Bellmore-Merrick American Democratic Club and the South Shore Women’s Alliance, said the ruling represents a victory for free speech.
“My thanks to the outstanding NYCLU legal team for defending my First Amendment rights against Bruce Blakeman and the Nassau County Legislature,” Borecky said in a statement following the decision. “It was peaceful assembly. It was protected speech. The law made it a crime. But with the NYCLU’s powerful case and a judge’s careful decision, justice prevailed.”
The Religious Safety Act, approved unanimously by the County Legislature and signed into law by County Executive Bruce Blakeman in January, created two restrictions affecting houses of worship. The first established a 35-foot buffer zone around entrances and driveways where demonstrations, protests, literature distribution, oral advocacy and other expressive conduct were prohibited. The second created a 100-foot zone around entrances in which individuals could not approach within 10 feet of another person for those same activities without consent.
Violations carried potential criminal penalties, including fines and jail time.
According to court documents, Borecky and Thiery had planned to distribute copies of a statement issued by New York’s Catholic bishops supporting immigrants and opposing mass deportations. The women intended to stand on public sidewalks outside several Nassau County churches and engage parishioners in conversations about immigration and Catholic teachings.
After the law was enacted, they canceled the planned effort, believing they could face arrest.
In his ruling, Bulsara acknowledged Nassau County’s interest in protecting religious freedom and public safety, but concluded that the law went too far in restricting speech.
“If the goal is to avoid harassment, intimidation, violence, or threatening speech, the County could have drafted a law that criminalized such conduct,” Bulsara wrote. “It need not have also banned peaceful conversation, polite exchange, and information distribution on public streets.”
The judge described the buffer-zone provision as “unprecedented,” and noted that the law prohibited a broad range of expressive activity, including leafleting, oral advocacy and symbolic conduct on public sidewalks.
Borecky pointed to language in the ruling that she said illustrated how broadly the law restricted expression. “The order basically said that no form of expression could be held outside of a church,” she told the Herald. “You couldn’t wear a shirt with a political message, even wearing a cross, and any kind of peaceful discussion was prohibited.”
Borecky said she was particularly troubled by the possibility that she could face criminal penalties for distributing information she viewed as consistent with her religious beliefs.
“When I learned that I could be jailed simply for distributing the Catholic Bishops’ Statement that asks Catholics to be guided by Christ’s teachings to welcome the foreigner, I felt my voice was being silenced and my First Amendment rights were being chipped away,” she said.
Attorneys for the New York Civil Liberties Union, which represented the women, argued that the law burdened protected speech in traditional public forums such as sidewalks and streets. The court agreed that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their First Amendment claims.
The ruling does not permanently invalidate the law. Instead, it prevents Nassau County from enforcing it while the lawsuit continues through the courts.
Blakeman has maintained that the Religious Safety Act was intended to protect the constitutional right to worship by preventing harassment, intimidation and potential violence outside houses of worship.
“The injunction was wrongfully issued based on the law and facts of this case,” Blakeman said in a statement to the Herald. “There is no likelihood of success on the merits as freedom of religion under the [C]onstitution is a guaranteed right and freedom of speech was not abridged.”
Borecky said she supports protecting worshippers from harassment, but believes the county’s law went beyond that objective.
“I have no problem with laws that prevent people from intimidating people who want to worship,” she said. “This law was unnecessary and too restrictive. It prevented people from peacefully talking to others and advocating for what they believe.”
