AN ACT Relating to interfering with access to a place of religious worship;
SB 5436 creates a new chapter in Title 9A RCW making it unlawful to intentionally or recklessly interfere with access to a place of religious worship, especially immediately before, during, or after religious services. The bill defines key terms such as “place of worship,” “religious organization,” “aggrieved person,” and “physically obstruct,” and it covers conduct including blocking entrances or exits, trespassing on worship property or common areas, repeated telephone or electronic communications, and threats of injury to people or property associated with the worship site.
The bill also establishes both criminal and civil remedies. A violation is classified as a gross misdemeanor, and an aggrieved person may sue for actual damages, additional statutory sums, costs, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief. Courts are authorized to issue temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctions, potentially without bond, and the state and its political subdivisions are directed to cooperate in enforcing such orders. The bill further states that remedies are cumulative, not exclusive, and that lawful picketing or public information activity remains protected.
If enacted, SB 5436 would add a new chapter to Washington’s criminal code and create a specific offense and civil cause of action related to interference with access to houses of worship. It would expand legal protections for churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, gurdwaras, and other religious organizations by giving law enforcement and courts explicit authority to address obstruction, harassment, trespass, threats, and disruptive communications aimed at worship services. It would also create new litigation exposure for individuals acting alone or in concert with others, including potential liability without a prior criminal conviction.
The available voting history shows strong support for the bill in the Senate, where it passed committee and final passage unanimously, and it later advanced in the House committee with only one dissenting vote. The bill’s findings emphasize public safety, free exercise of religion, and unobstructed access to worship services, suggesting the measure was framed as a protective public-order bill rather than a speech-restrictive one. No committee transcript is available here, but the vote pattern indicates broad bipartisan or near-unanimous support overall.
The main potential point of contention is the balance between protecting access to religious services and preserving First Amendment rights, especially around protest activity, picketing, and public communications near places of worship. The bill expressly says it does not prohibit lawful picketing or public information efforts and states it is not intended to favor any viewpoint or limit speech on any specific topic. Another possible issue is the breadth of the prohibited conduct and the availability of civil damages and injunctions, which could raise concerns about overreach or misuse in disputes involving demonstrations near religious property.