Mayor reviews legality of protest restrictions as Jewish leaders push for stronger protections
As antisemitic incidents including violent protests targeting synagogues have intensified across New York City, community leaders and elected officials have proposed “buffer zones” that would restrict demonstrations within specific distances from houses of worship. The debate over these restrictions pits genuine concerns about safety and intimidation against constitutional protections for free speech and public assembly, forcing Mayor Zohran Mamdani to navigate competing rights and values. The outcome of this policy debate will have significant implications for how the city balances security concerns with First Amendment protections.
The Incidents That Prompted Action
In November 2025, pro-Palestinian protesters demonstrated outside Park East Synagogue in Manhattan while the facility hosted an event promoting real estate sales and migration to Israel. Demonstrators chanted “death to the IDF” and “globalize the intifada.” Mamdani, elected but not yet sworn in, made a statement saying “sacred spaces should not be used to promote activities in violation of international law,” a response that drew criticism for appearing to blame the synagogue rather than the protesters. In January 2026, another protest erupted outside Young Israel of Kew Garden Hills in Queens, where demonstrators chanted “We support Hamas here.” This incident prompted Gov. Kathy Hochul to announce a state-level proposal for buffer zones.
The Buffer Zone Proposals
Governor Hochul proposed creating 25-foot buffer zones around houses of worship at the state level. New York City Council Speaker Julie Menin introduced a bill proposing 100-foot buffer zones at the municipal level. Additionally, state legislators Micah Lasher and Sam Sutton, both Jewish Democrats, proposed a state buffer zone bill. The proposals would prohibit or restrict demonstrations immediately outside synagogues, churches, mosques, and temples, even as they preserve the right to protest elsewhere.
Mayor Mamdani’s Cautious Approach
Rather than immediately endorsing buffer zone legislation, Mayor Mamdani directed the NYPD and the city Law Department on his first day in office to review the legality of various proposals, including buffer zones. In an interview on WABC television, Mamdani stated: “If something is within the bounds of the law, I will support that. If it’s not, then I can’t.” This careful stance reflects legitimate legal concerns about whether restrictions on protest could violate constitutional protections.
The Executive Order Response
Mamdani also signed an executive order directing the police commissioner and law department to better regulate protests outside houses of worship. The order called for evaluating buffer zones ranging from 15 to 60 feet from entrances and additional restrictions during publicly scheduled religious services.
The First Amendment Challenge
Buffer zones around abortion clinics provide a cautionary precedent. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2014 unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law creating a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinic entrances, ruling it violated the First Amendment. The decision found that even the state’s important interest in protecting patients and clinic staff could not justify such broad restrictions on speech and assembly. Legal experts warn that similar challenges could derail New York’s buffer zone proposals.
The Discrimination Problem
A critical legal issue involves whether buffer zones would apply equally to all protests or whether they would discriminate based on the content of the message. If the law permits supportive demonstrations but bans critical ones, it likely violates the First Amendment. State Senator Liz Krueger, a Jewish elected official representing a Manhattan district that includes Park East Synagogue, reportedly settled on a 25-foot buffer zone specifically to maximize the chances of surviving legal scrutiny.
Jewish Community Perspectives
Jewish organizations and leaders are divided on buffer zones. The UJA-Federation of New York and the Jewish Community Relations Council have generally supported buffer zone proposals. However, progressive Jewish groups including Jewish Voice for Peace, IfNotNow, and the American Council for Judaism have criticized the focus on protesters rather than on the institutions hosting events about West Bank real estate and Israeli settlements. The American Jewish Committee noted that federal law already provides some protection for houses of worship through the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which makes it illegal to use force, threats, or physical obstruction to block access.
The Real Estate Event Question
A complicating factor in the debate is the nature of the events being protested. Synagogues hosting events promoting real estate sales in West Bank settlements are themselves controversial. Some view such events as promoting Israeli policies critics consider violations of international law. Others view the events as legitimate community activities and the protests as antisemitic targeting of Jewish institutions. This underlying disagreement makes the buffer zone debate more complicated than simple safety versus free speech.
Alternative Approaches
Rather than relying primarily on buffer zones, some advocates recommend increased police presence, community policing relationships with Jewish neighborhoods, prosecution of individuals engaging in violence or direct intimidation, and educational efforts about the distinction between legitimate political protest and antisemitic harassment. Menin’s task force proposals also included funding for the Museum of Jewish Heritage and establishment of a hotline for reporting antisemitic incidents through the NYC Commission on Human Rights.
Reconciling Values
The core challenge is reconciling multiple legitimate values: the right of Jewish communities to gather and worship safely, the right of protesters to express political views, the distinction between antisemitism and political criticism of Israeli policies, and the protection of free speech and assembly for all groups. A workable policy must address genuine threats and intimidation without becoming a tool to silence political dissent.
Moving Forward
The fate of buffer zone legislation remains uncertain. The State Assembly and Senate must negotiate the final version, with the goal of reaching agreement by April 1. However, the path could prove rocky as various constituencies weigh in on both sides. If buffer zones are enacted, legal challenges will likely follow, potentially reaching federal court. The city could also pursue approaches that do not rely on geographic restrictions, such as increased enforcement of existing laws against violent behavior, threats, and obstruction, combined with improved police response to incidents. Resources on religious discrimination provide legal context. Information on free speech rights offers civil liberties perspectives. The Anti-Defamation League documents antisemitic incidents. The Jewish Voice for Peace offers progressive Jewish perspectives.
