Proponents say AZ bill would deal with antisemitism. Opponents say it could silence free speech
June 11, 2026 at 4:58 PM MST
A proposed Arizona bill promoted as protecting religious services from interference is drawing opposition amid claims it is so broad it could be used to silence free speech and dissent.
HB 4117 is designed to deal with what several people say has been a rise in antisemitism. More to the point, according to Arizona state Sen. Alma Hernandez, it has spilled over into issues at synagogues.
"None of us want to be disturbed when we're at a religious service," said the Tucson Democrat. And Hernandez said she sees that as someone who has served on the board of her synagogue.
"We had to, unfortunately, hire actual an actual police officer to be present every time we've had a Shabbat service," she said, referring to the Jewish Sabbath.
The original version of HB 4117, while approved by the House, used language like making it illegal to "disturb" or "disquiet" a religious service through indecent ran into issues about whether its prohibitions against things like "profane'' speech and unnecessary noise unfairly infringed on First Amendment rights.
So Sen. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, crafted new language he said would resolve those issues.
But when the revised bill came before the full Senate, Sen. Analise Ortiz said that only made things worse.
"This original text was a simple misdemeanor for indoor disruption," said the Phoenix Democrat.
"The amendment has now expanded it to outdoor, adjacent spaces, covering an undefined, protracted commotion near any religious activity," Ortiz said.
Kavanagh said expanding it beyond the actual churches, synagogues, mosques and other houses of worship is necessary.
Consider, he said, what happens in his home community, where a religious group rents a section of a city park for an Easter sunrise service. Similarly, he said the law would protect services even if they were held in a room at a community center.
Ortiz, for her part, said she sees quite a different scenario. And it starts, Ortiz said, with the new version of HB 4117 protecting not just religious services but "religious activities."
Consider, she said, the Westboro Baptist Church.
"People might claim that that's religious activity," Ortiz said, potentially allowing anyone who might seek to interrupt that group's activities with chanting or singing or anything else that police believe is interfering with what parishioners are doing.
Ditto, she said, of the activities of some anti-abortion groups who may be praying outside of the clinics of Planned Parenthood.
Ortiz is not alone in her concerns about the breadth of the measure.
"There's a Planned Parenthood clinic in my district,'' said Sen. Lauren Kuby. "It's often the site of protests with people spouting religious themes, shall we say, and trying to interfere with patients getting their healthcare.
The federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act already makes it illegal to use force, physical obstruction or other activities designed to injure, intimidate, or interfere with people going into a facility. The Tempe Democrat said she fears what might happen if HB 4117 gives those protesters new rights based on the measure's protections for religious activities.
"My concern is this bill would really put abortion patients in greater danger of harassment and violence than they're already under,'' she said.
"It will allow protesters, say, to gather outside a privately owned Planned Parenthood clinic, on a public parking lot,'' Kuby said. "And as long as they're assembled for a vaguely defined religious activity, they will be protected."
And that, she said, could mean someone who interrupts what is happening, even just to speak to a protester or mutter some comment, could be classified as having interfered with a religious activity.
A first time offense would be a Class 1 misdemeanor, carrying a potential penalty of six months in jail. But a second offense — or any offense committed by two or more — carries a maximum penalty of a year and a half in state prison.
Kavanagh said the concerns about the breadth of the proposal are not justified.
He said the first pat of the legislation deals with issues that have broad agreement: that it should be against the law to obstruct, block, or impede another person's ability to enter or exist a place of religious worship.
As to the rest of it — the parts that apply to religious services or activities — Kavanagh said a violation would occur only if someone makes "protected commotion, utterance, or display'' that disrupts the religious service or worship. And he said that a protest of any type "does not become a religious service because somebody says a prayer in the middle of a protest.''
Sarah Kadar, deputy regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, told lawmakers new laws are needed.
"Frequent violent clashes between protesters and congregants have drawn considerable attention,'' Kadar said. "Incidents at synagogues, churches and mosques and other institutions of faith have proven to be dangerous.''
HB 4117 is designed to deal with what several people say has been a rise in antisemitism. More to the point, according to Arizona state Sen. Alma Hernandez, it has spilled over into issues at synagogues.
"None of us want to be disturbed when we're at a religious service," said the Tucson Democrat. And Hernandez said she sees that as someone who has served on the board of her synagogue.
"We had to, unfortunately, hire actual an actual police officer to be present every time we've had a Shabbat service," she said, referring to the Jewish Sabbath.
The original version of HB 4117, while approved by the House, used language like making it illegal to "disturb" or "disquiet" a religious service through indecent ran into issues about whether its prohibitions against things like "profane'' speech and unnecessary noise unfairly infringed on First Amendment rights.
So Sen. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, crafted new language he said would resolve those issues.
But when the revised bill came before the full Senate, Sen. Analise Ortiz said that only made things worse.
"This original text was a simple misdemeanor for indoor disruption," said the Phoenix Democrat.
"The amendment has now expanded it to outdoor, adjacent spaces, covering an undefined, protracted commotion near any religious activity," Ortiz said.
Kavanagh said expanding it beyond the actual churches, synagogues, mosques and other houses of worship is necessary.
Consider, he said, what happens in his home community, where a religious group rents a section of a city park for an Easter sunrise service. Similarly, he said the law would protect services even if they were held in a room at a community center.
Ortiz, for her part, said she sees quite a different scenario. And it starts, Ortiz said, with the new version of HB 4117 protecting not just religious services but "religious activities."
Consider, she said, the Westboro Baptist Church.
"People might claim that that's religious activity," Ortiz said, potentially allowing anyone who might seek to interrupt that group's activities with chanting or singing or anything else that police believe is interfering with what parishioners are doing.
Ditto, she said, of the activities of some anti-abortion groups who may be praying outside of the clinics of Planned Parenthood.
Ortiz is not alone in her concerns about the breadth of the measure.
"There's a Planned Parenthood clinic in my district,'' said Sen. Lauren Kuby. "It's often the site of protests with people spouting religious themes, shall we say, and trying to interfere with patients getting their healthcare.
The federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act already makes it illegal to use force, physical obstruction or other activities designed to injure, intimidate, or interfere with people going into a facility. The Tempe Democrat said she fears what might happen if HB 4117 gives those protesters new rights based on the measure's protections for religious activities.
"My concern is this bill would really put abortion patients in greater danger of harassment and violence than they're already under,'' she said.
"It will allow protesters, say, to gather outside a privately owned Planned Parenthood clinic, on a public parking lot,'' Kuby said. "And as long as they're assembled for a vaguely defined religious activity, they will be protected."
And that, she said, could mean someone who interrupts what is happening, even just to speak to a protester or mutter some comment, could be classified as having interfered with a religious activity.
A first time offense would be a Class 1 misdemeanor, carrying a potential penalty of six months in jail. But a second offense — or any offense committed by two or more — carries a maximum penalty of a year and a half in state prison.
Kavanagh said the concerns about the breadth of the proposal are not justified.
He said the first pat of the legislation deals with issues that have broad agreement: that it should be against the law to obstruct, block, or impede another person's ability to enter or exist a place of religious worship.
As to the rest of it — the parts that apply to religious services or activities — Kavanagh said a violation would occur only if someone makes "protected commotion, utterance, or display'' that disrupts the religious service or worship. And he said that a protest of any type "does not become a religious service because somebody says a prayer in the middle of a protest.''
Sarah Kadar, deputy regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, told lawmakers new laws are needed.
"Frequent violent clashes between protesters and congregants have drawn considerable attention,'' Kadar said. "Incidents at synagogues, churches and mosques and other institutions of faith have proven to be dangerous.''