Right to Worship Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Knott, Brad [R-NC-13]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 6, 2026
Bottom line
The Right to Worship Act creates new federal civil enforcement mechanisms to protect religious services from disruptive or obstructive conduct near houses of worship.
What it actually does
This bill establishes federal civil penalties and remedies for individuals who knowingly disrupt or impede scheduled religious services within 100 feet of a house of worship's entryway. It defines what constitutes disruption and impediment, specifies the timeframes during which these actions are prohibited, and outlines a tiered system of civil fines and a private right of action for aggrieved persons, as well as actions by the Attorney General.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is essential to protect the fundamental right to the free exercise of religion, ensuring that individuals can attend and participate in religious services without fear of harassment, intimidation, or disruption. They contend that recent incidents of protests targeting religious institutions necessitate clear federal protections to safeguard places of worship and their congregants, allowing them to practice their faith peacefully and securely.
Opponents contend
Opponents might contend that while protecting religious freedom is important, this bill could potentially infringe upon constitutionally protected free speech rights, particularly the right to protest. They may argue that the definitions of 'disrupt' and 'impede' are broad enough to encompass legitimate, peaceful demonstrations, and that the 100-foot buffer zone and severe penalties could chill expression and create a precedent for restricting public assembly near other institutions.
The bill is concise and relatively easy to read, allowing an informed reader to grasp its core provisions and implications within the typical time allotted for legislative review.
Section 2(a)
Key Definitions
This section defines critical terms for the bill's enforcement. 'Disrupt' means conduct that meaningfully interferes with participation in a service, causing a substantial interruption. 'Impede' means unreasonably hindering or deterring entry, or threatening/intimidating to prevent participation. A 'house of worship' is a designated space for routine religious gatherings. A 'scheduled religious service' includes observably underway services, those with known dates/times, or those following a customary schedule of which the defendant had actual knowledge. 'Knowingly' means being aware or reasonably aware that one's conduct will cause disruption or impediment.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that precise definitions are necessary to provide clarity for enforcement and to ensure the law targets genuinely disruptive behavior without inadvertently restricting legitimate activities. They believe these definitions strike a balance between protecting religious freedom and respecting other rights.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that some definitions, particularly 'disrupt' and 'impede,' remain subjective and could be interpreted broadly by authorities, potentially leading to the suppression of peaceful protest or expressive conduct that does not genuinely threaten public safety or order.
Tradeoffs
The definitions attempt to balance the protection of religious exercise with the right to free speech, by specifying the nature and impact of prohibited conduct rather than its content. However, the subjective nature of 'meaningfully interferes' or 'unreasonably hinders' creates a tension regarding potential overreach.
Section 2(b)
Prohibited Activities
This section makes it unlawful for any person to knowingly disrupt a scheduled religious service or impede people from participating in it. This prohibition applies within 100 feet of any pedestrian or vehicular entryway of a house of worship. The restricted period is from one hour before the service starts to one hour after it concludes. Additionally, it is unlawful to conspire to engage in, or cause another person to engage in, these prohibited activities. The conduct must also 'substantially affect interstate commerce' to establish federal jurisdiction.
Section 2(d)
Civil Fines for Violations
This section establishes a tiered system of civil fines to be assessed by the Attorney General for violations of the prohibited activities. A first offense incurs a civil fine of $2,500. A second offense results in a $5,000 fine. For a third or any subsequent offense, the civil fine increases to $10,000 per occurrence. These fines are distinct from any civil remedies sought by aggrieved parties or the Attorney General through court action.
Section 2(e)
Civil Remedies and Rights of Action
This section grants several avenues for civil enforcement. Any person aggrieved by a violation can file a civil action in federal court, seeking injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and legal costs. Plaintiffs can choose to receive $5,000 in statutory damages per violation instead of actual damages. The Attorney General of the United States can also initiate civil actions for injunctive relief and compensatory damages, and may assess a civil penalty of $5,000 per violation to vindicate the public interest. State Attorneys General are also empowered to bring civil actions on behalf of their residents, seeking the same relief as the U.S. Attorney General.
The prohibited activities must 'substantially affect interstate commerce' for federal jurisdiction to apply.
Section 2(b)(1)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure the bill's constitutionality under the Commerce Clause, rather than an attempt to obscure its meaning.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this clause is a necessary legal safeguard, ensuring that the federal government has the constitutional authority to legislate in this area, particularly when addressing localized disruptions that might collectively impact national commerce or travel.
Case against: Critics might argue that while legally necessary, this clause can be broadly interpreted, potentially expanding federal reach into matters traditionally handled at the state or local level, and could be used to justify federal intervention in a wide range of local activities.
Estimated impact: This clause enables federal enforcement of the act, allowing the Department of Justice and federal courts to intervene in cases that might otherwise only be subject to state or local laws.
The determination of whether conduct is a 'disruption' is based solely on the manner in which it is carried out (volume, duration, pervasiveness, frequency, impact), not on the content of any speech or expression involved.
Section 2(a)(2)(B)
Why it matters:This is likely an attempt to proactively address First Amendment concerns by explicitly stating that the law is content-neutral. Placing it here clarifies the intent behind the definitions.
Case for: Proponents would highlight this as a critical safeguard for free speech, demonstrating that the bill is narrowly tailored to address disruptive conduct, not to suppress particular viewpoints or messages. They would argue it ensures the law focuses on behavior, not belief.
Case against: Opponents might argue that while the intent is good, the practical application of distinguishing 'manner' from 'content' can be challenging, especially in highly charged situations. They may contend that even content-neutral restrictions can have a disproportionate impact on certain types of speech or speakers.
Estimated impact: This rule is intended to protect the bill from First Amendment challenges by ensuring it functions as a time, place, and manner restriction, rather than a content-based restriction on speech.