ACLJ Files Amicus Brief to Defend Religious Liberty and 2nd Amendment Rights of Churches and Synagogues From Discriminatory Ban Against Self-Protection

New York state is home to the largest Jewish population in the world outside the State of Israel. It also is home to more violent assaults against Jews than anywhere in the United States. Recently, on behalf of students and faculty at the massive City University of New York (CUNY) system, the ACLJ took on the case of campus antisemitic harassment, abuse, and violence, which is a scourge across America but especially pervasive and concentrated in New York.

One might imagine, given the size of its population, that more than any other state in America, New York state’s officials would act to protect Jewish human, civil, and religious rights. Shockingly, it’s quite the reverse. Across the board, there has been an assault on Jews and Judaism by New York’s Leftist-controlled government – particularly against those most religiously observant.

New York’s political leaders have pushed increasingly soft-on-crime policies that have led to even more attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions – like synagogues. At the same time, New York has led an ever more aggressive campaign to deny law-abiding citizens their Second Amendment right to protect themselves, including stripping away the right for churches, synagogues, and other houses of worship to defend themselves.

Last year, the ACLJ filed an amicus brief supporting a challenge to New York’s unconstitutional restrictions on individuals wanting to carry a “pistol or revolver” outside their homes. It was one of the most significant Second Amendment cases in years. Tracking the arguments put forth in the ACLJ’s brief, the United States Supreme Court indeed held that the New York law violated the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.

In reaction to the Court’s decision, however, New York doubled down, banning permit holders from bringing weapons into “sensitive locations,” including, explicitly, “places of worship or religious observation.” Houses of worship were given no say in the matter; they could not allow their congregants to help provide security and protection.

In response to this new assault targeting the safety and security of religious communities and families, houses of worship in New York, including churches and synagogues, sued the state. This week, the ACLJ, on behalf of its supporters and the Synagogue Security Council of North America (SSCNA), filed an amicus brief in one such lawsuit, Spencer v. Nigrelli, now before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

SSCNA, which focuses on developing effective volunteer first responders within its communities, explains what is at stake in this case:

According to the FBI, the median law enforcement response time to a priority one active shooter call in the United States is over three minutes. In rural areas, this could be over thirty minutes. This means that in case of an attack, congregants will always be the first responders. In the past twenty years, according to FBI statistics, there is an average of twelve victims per minute in an active threat attack. This means that without an armed component to a synagogue’s security plan, they need to be willing to potentially sacrifice the lives of thirty-six members of their community before the police arrive on scene. . . .

It is not financially tenable or effective to expect that an armed guard will always be present when there is a gathering of congregants in a synagogue. Orthodox Jews pray 3 times a day in addition to study classes and other synagogue programming, which means Orthodox synagogues would need an armed guard present essentially most of the time the building is open. Also, since armed guards are not part of the synagogue community, they cannot know who belongs to the faith community. They are therefore generally incapable of serving as greeters or screeners in order to vet with any accuracy who belongs and who doesn’t, who is a threat and who is not. The only effective way to do this, according to the subject matter experts on the SSCNA board of directors and advisors, is to have members of the community trained as effective armed first responders.

Recent years have seen some of the grimmest attacks on synagogues and Jewish religious institutions in American history, including the Tree of Life Synagogue massacre, where 11 worshipers were killed and six wounded, the Chabad of Poway synagogue shooting, the Jersey City shooting, a deadly machete attack in Monsey, NY, and more.

Our brief in support of the right of religious institutions like synagogues to make their own decisions about how best to protect their congregants makes the following points:

First, New York’s law banning firearms from houses of worship violates the Free Exercise Clause. The law does so by treating houses of worship worse than many other secular property owners, for no legitimate reason. When religious institutions are treated worse than even one secular entity, such as a hair salon or movie theatre, the law is presumptively unconstitutional. Only under extraordinary circumstances would such a law be upheld. New York cannot show that such circumstances are present here. To the contrary, FBI statistics show that while they are at higher risk of being targeted by outsiders, attendees at houses of worship – those who are now suing for the right to protect themselves – most certainly are not the sources of gun deaths. Where religious institutions like synagogues are at heightened risk of violent attacks, forbidding them from exercising their constitutional right to protect themselves against such threats is irrational.

Second, we argued that the New York law violated the church autonomy doctrine. The doctrine is based on both the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. Encompassed within the church autonomy principle is the right to a) control church property and b) make internal management decisions related to church government, faith, and religious doctrine. Control over property and internal management decisions necessarily includes the right to select constitutionally protected means to secure both the church’s property and the lives of those practicing, transmitting, and receiving the faith.

We are proud to stand with Americans of faith who seek the ability to protect themselves and their families at worship. And we are proud to fight against all anti-religious hatred and antisemitism. We will keep you apprised as this critical test of core constitutional rights works its way through the courts.