Right to Worship Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 6, 2026
Bottom line
The Right to Worship Act aims to create a federal civil cause of action and penalties to protect religious services from disruption and obstruction, focusing on conduct rather than speech content.
What it actually does
This bill makes it unlawful to knowingly disrupt a scheduled religious service or impede people from participating in such a service within 100 feet of a house of worship's entryway. It defines "disrupt" and "impede" and establishes civil fines and remedies for violations, allowing individuals, the Attorney General, and State Attorneys General to bring civil actions.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue this bill is necessary to safeguard the fundamental right to the free exercise of religion, ensuring that individuals can worship without fear of harassment or interference. They contend it provides a clear legal framework to deter disruptive behavior and offers recourse for religious communities whose services are targeted, emphasizing that it protects the manner of conduct, not the content of speech.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that existing laws are sufficient to address disruptive conduct and that this bill could be used to suppress legitimate protest or free speech near houses of worship, even if it claims to focus on conduct. Concerns could be raised about the broadness of "disrupt" or "impede" and the potential for selective enforcement against certain groups or viewpoints, potentially chilling First Amendment activities.
The bill is short and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick and informed review.
Section 1
Short Title
This section establishes the official short title of the Act as the "Right to Worship Act." This designation provides a concise and easily recognizable name for the legislation, facilitating its reference in public discourse, legal documents, and legislative proceedings. The short title serves as the primary identifier for the bill once it becomes law, ensuring clarity and consistency in its public and official recognition.
Supporters argue
Supporters would argue that a clear and concise short title helps in easily identifying and referring to the legislation, making it more accessible for public discourse and legal reference.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against short title provisions, as they are administrative in nature.
Tradeoffs
None apparent for this provision.
Section 2(a)
Key Definitions for Enforcement
This section defines critical terms like "disrupt" (meaning meaningfully interferes, causing substantial interruption), "impede" (unreasonably hinders or deters entry, or threatens/intimidates), "house of worship," "religious service," and "scheduled religious service." It also clarifies that disruption is determined by the manner of conduct (volume, duration, impact), not speech content, and that houses of worship are not required to publish schedules. These definitions are crucial for the consistent and fair application of the law, guiding both enforcement agencies and the judiciary in interpreting the Act's scope and prohibitions.
Section 2(b)
Prohibition on Disrupting or Impeding Religious Services
This section makes it unlawful for any person to knowingly disrupt a scheduled religious service or knowingly impede people from participating in such a service. This prohibition applies within 100 feet from any pedestrian or vehicular entryway of a house of worship, during the period beginning one hour before the start of and ending one hour after the conclusion of a scheduled religious service. It also prohibits conspiring to engage in, or causing another person to engage in, any such conduct. This core provision establishes the specific actions that are deemed illegal under the Act, creating a protected zone and time window for religious gatherings.
Section 2(d) and 2(e)
Enforcement and Penalties
This section outlines the enforcement mechanisms, including civil fines assessed by the Attorney General ($2,500 for first offense, $5,000 for second, $10,000 for third or subsequent offense). It also creates a private right of action for aggrieved persons to seek injunctive relief, compensatory or punitive damages, or statutory damages ($5,000 per violation). Additionally, the U.S. Attorney General and State Attorneys General can bring civil actions for injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and civil penalties ($5,000 per violation) to vindicate the public interest. These provisions ensure that there are clear consequences for violations and multiple avenues for seeking redress.
Defines "knowingly" as being "aware or reasonably should be aware" that one's conduct will cause disruption or impediment.
Section 2(a)(1)(D)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining mens rea (guilty mind) for a new offense. It's crucial for determining culpability.
Case for: Proponents would argue this standard is necessary to prevent individuals from claiming ignorance and to ensure accountability for actions that are clearly disruptive or impeding. It sets a reasonable bar for intent.
Case against: Opponents might argue that "reasonably should be aware" is a lower bar than actual knowledge and could lead to individuals being penalized for actions they did not intend to be disruptive, potentially chilling spontaneous expression.
Estimated impact: This definition significantly influences the scope of who can be held liable under the Act, making it easier to prove intent than if "actual knowledge" were required.
Defines "scheduled religious service" broadly to include services observably underway, imminently beginning/concluding, or those with customary, regularly recurring schedules of which the defendant had actual knowledge. It also explicitly states that a house of worship is not required to publish its schedule publicly.
Section 2(a)(1)(F) and 2(a)(2)(A)
Why it matters:These are technical details necessary for the practical application and enforcement of the law, ensuring that the protection applies even if a schedule isn't widely advertised.
Case for: Proponents would argue this protects houses of worship that may not wish to publicize their schedules for security or privacy reasons, while still ensuring that individuals who know a service is happening can be held accountable for disruption.
Case against: Opponents might argue that not requiring public schedules makes it harder for individuals to know when they might be violating the law, especially if they are not regular attendees or local residents, potentially leading to unintentional violations or chilling effects on public space use.
Estimated impact: This broad definition and the non-publication rule expand the practical scope of the protection, making it applicable to a wider range of services and potentially increasing the burden on individuals to ascertain service times.
Clarifies that nothing in the Act precludes free speech "pursuant to the time, place, and manner restrictions set forth in this section" or participation in activities for which a government entity has issued a permit.
Section 2(c)
Why it matters:This is a standard legal safeguard to affirm that the bill is intended to operate within constitutional bounds, specifically regarding the First Amendment.
Case for: Proponents would highlight this as evidence that the bill is carefully crafted to respect First Amendment rights, ensuring that speech is still permitted as long as it adheres to the specified conduct-based restrictions.
Case against: Opponents might argue that while it invokes "time, place, and manner," the restrictions themselves (100-foot zone, 2-hour window, broad definitions of disruption/impediment) are not reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions in practice, and this clause doesn't mitigate that.
Estimated impact: This clause is crucial for the bill's constitutionality, framing the prohibitions as permissible restrictions on conduct rather than content.