Baltimore County - Nuisance Actions - Community Association
HB0305 creates a new criminal offense for intentionally preventing another person from entering or exiting a religious facility by physically detaining, obstructing, impeding, or hindering that person’s passage. The bill defines “religious facility” broadly to include property owned, leased, or used by a religious entity or for a religious purpose, including places of worship, cemeteries, religious schools, educational facilities, community centers, and adjacent grounds. It also expressly states that the prohibition does not apply to the facility’s chief executive officer, designee, agent, or law enforcement officers, and that it does not prohibit speech.
The bill also makes a conforming change to Maryland’s existing law on interference with access to medical facilities by leaving that section in place and adding the new religious-facility provision alongside it. A violation of the new section would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days in jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. The act would take effect October 1, 2025.
HB0305 would expand Maryland criminal law by adding a specific prohibition against physically blocking access to religious facilities, creating a new misdemeanor offense and associated penalties. It would affect individuals who engage in physical obstruction at houses of worship and related religious properties, while preserving protections for speech and for certain facility personnel and law enforcement. The bill would also reinforce existing statutory protections for access to medical facilities by placing the new religious-facility offense in the same part of the Criminal Law Article.
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears framed as a public-safety and access-protection bill, with an explicit carveout for speech suggesting an effort to avoid restricting expressive activity. The absence of recorded votes or testimony means the overall sentiment cannot be determined from the supplied materials.
The main potential point of contention is the balance between protecting access to religious facilities and preserving First Amendment activity, especially protests, demonstrations, or other expressive conduct near houses of worship. The bill tries to address that concern by stating that it does not prohibit speech, but it still criminalizes physical obstruction, which could raise questions about how the law would be applied in practice. Another possible issue is the breadth of the definition of “religious facility,” which extends beyond sanctuaries to cemeteries, schools, community centers, and adjacent grounds.