HB0750 expands Maryland criminal law protections around religious worship and access to religious property. The bill adds a new offense prohibiting a person, acting alone or with others, from intentionally preventing another person from entering or exiting a religious facility by physically detaining, obstructing, impeding, or hindering that person’s passage. It also creates a separate prohibition against using force, threats of force, or physical obstruction to interfere with or physically injure someone who is lawfully exercising or attempting to exercise religious freedom at a place of religious worship.
The bill defines “religious facility” broadly to include property owned, leased, or used by a religious entity for religious purposes, including places of worship, cemeteries, religious schools, educational facilities, community centers, and adjacent grounds. It exempts certain persons acting on behalf of the facility, including the person in charge, designees, agents, law enforcement officers, and others authorized or acting in good faith to protect the facility or its activities. The bill also states that it does not prohibit speech, and it preserves the religious facility’s discretion over who may be on its premises under the internal dictates of the religious organization.
In terms of state law impact, HB0750 adds a new section to the Criminal Law Article and carries forward the existing misdemeanor penalty structure used in related access-protection provisions: up to 90 days’ imprisonment, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. It also leaves intact existing provisions on medical facility access and property damage to religious property, while extending similar access-protection concepts specifically to religious facilities and worship activities. The act takes effect October 1, 2026.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill’s enactment is supportive and protective of religious liberty and access to houses of worship. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented floor debate or formal opposition in the supplied materials. The structure of the bill suggests a policy focus on preventing disruptive or coercive conduct at religious sites while explicitly preserving speech rights and lawful security or facility-management activities.
The main potential point of contention is the balance between protecting religious exercise and preserving expressive activity, especially around protests or demonstrations near religious sites. The bill addresses that concern by expressly stating that speech is not prohibited and by limiting the offense to physical obstruction, force, threats of force, or physical interference. Another possible issue is the breadth of the definition of religious facility and the discretion given to religious organizations over access to their premises, which could raise questions about enforcement boundaries in practice.
HB0750 creates a new misdemeanor offense in the Maryland Criminal Law Article for physically preventing entry to or exit from a religious facility and for using force, threats, or physical obstruction to interfere with religious exercise at a place of worship. It broadens statutory protection for religious properties and activities, while preserving exceptions for facility personnel, law enforcement, authorized protectors, and speech. The bill adds a new section to the Criminal Law Article and establishes penalties of up to 90 days in jail, a $1,000 fine, or both.
The bill appears to have been enacted with a generally protective, pro-religious-freedom policy orientation. The available record shows final approval by the Governor and no recorded committee testimony or vote breakdown indicating organized opposition. The statutory language itself reflects an effort to safeguard worship access while explicitly preserving speech rights, suggesting an attempt to frame the measure as a narrow anti-obstruction law rather than a broad protest restriction.
The most likely area of contention is the line between protected speech and prohibited physical interference near religious facilities. Supporters would view the bill as necessary to prevent blocking, intimidation, or disruption of worship, while critics could worry about how the law might affect demonstrations or expressive activity near houses of worship. The bill tries to limit that concern by excluding speech from the prohibition and by focusing on physical obstruction, but the breadth of the definition of religious facility and the discretion granted to religious organizations over premises access could still prompt questions about enforcement and scope.