In United States v. Party for Socialism and Liberation New Jersey, (D NJ, Sept. 30, 2026), a New Jersey federal district court dismissed with leave to amend, a civil action by the United States against several individual and organizational defendants (including American Muslims for Palestine, New Jersey). Defendants demonstrated outside a Jewish synagogue where an event that included prayer, a memorial service, teachings about the obligation to live in Israel and an Israel real estate fair was taking place. The suit charged violation of a provision of the Freedom of Access to Clinics Act that prohibits a person from intentionally injuring, intimidating or interfering with anyone who is lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise their 1st Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of worship.
The court held that the complaint, while it "describe[s] a rapidly escalating sequence of physical confrontations did not adequately allege the required elements of a violation." The court said in part:
The Court does not read § 248(a)(2) of the FACE Act as federalizing every physical confrontation that occurs on the grounds of a place of worship, which is the essence of what is pleaded in the complaint....
The court went through the charges against each defendant and concluded as to each that the required elements of an offense had not been adequately alleged. For example, it said:
The pleaded facts, while colorfully set forth, do not allege that Sharif’s alleged use of force was directed at halting, disrupting, or otherwise affecting prayer, the memorial service, the Torah sermon, or any other religious observance taking place in the synagogue, or at preventing Glick or Silberberg from entering, leaving, or participating in the scheduled events....
It alleges that the group of protestors made passage to or from the synagogue unreasonably difficult or hazardous, but does not allege that Sharif blocked a route, stood at an entrance, directed others to obstruct passage, or otherwise participated in the alleged physical obstruction...
... Because FACE regulates conduct that may occur alongside core political expression, courts must distinguish the force, threats of force, and physical obstruction the statute prohibits from protected—even if forceful, unwelcome, or upsetting—protest activity....
As with Sharif’s motion, the Court carefully examines what the complaint says about Camins, and the allegations are very narrow. The government does not allege that he personally struck Silberberg, physically restrained him, blew a vuvuzela, physically obstructed access to the synagogue, or communicated a threat of force. Nor does the claim rest on Camins’s presence at the protest, his political views, or his criticism of the event. Instead, the government relies on a single allegation that Camins incited violence. The government contends .. that when Camins pointed toward Silberberg and uttered “the Jew is here!” that “[i]n context ..., this phrase can be seen as an exhortation to the mob to an imminent lawless action—i.e., to an attack David Silberberg.”... [T]he question is whether what Camins said plausibly supports an inference that Camins used the statement to solicit or facilitate force.
The Court concludes that it does not. There needs be context to infer that “the Jew is here” is a statement inciting violence. The complaint does not supply that....
The court went through a similar type of analysis for three other defendants.
