The City Council on Thursday passed controversial bills aimed at increasing NYPD oversight of protests outside of religious institutions and educational sites, overriding critics' objections that the measures trammel free speech.
The bill related to houses of worship passed overwhelmingly, in a 44-5 vote, with one abstention. The vote related to educational institutions was tighter, passing by 30-19, with one abstention, making it more vulnerable to a possible mayoral veto.
Passage came after both bills were stripped of controversial provisions that would have allowed for the creation of 100-foot buffer zones around houses of worship and educational institutions targeted by protesters. First Amendment experts said the zones likely ran afoul of Supreme Court guidance on free speech protections.
The legislation follows the tumult on college campuses and outside religious institutions sparked by the Hamas attack on Israel and the ongoing war in Gaza that followed, and reflects the Council’s effort to draw contours around the public protests that continue.
“I am immensely proud of the legislative package the Council passed today to combat hate, including my legislation to help protect safe access to houses of worship,” Council Speaker Julie Menin in a statement.
“This is an urgently needed and carefully crafted bill that will ensure transparency, accountability, and community engagement in NYPD plans to respond to protests — three pillars to protecting both public safety and free speech rights alike,” Menin said.
One bill requires the NYPD commissioner “to establish a plan to address and contain the risk of physical obstruction, physical injury, intimidation, and interference at places of religious worship while preserving and protecting the rights to free speech, assembly and protest.”
The second bill would ensure similar actions for educational institutions, including public and private schools, colleges and universities.
Dora Pekec, a spokesperson for Mayor Zohran Mamdani, said in a statement that the mayor is reviewing the bills.
“The Mayor is keenly aware of the serious concerns regarding these bills' limiting of New Yorkers' constitutional rights, and he will keep these concerns in mind for any bills that land on his desk,” Pekec said. “He wants to ensure both the right to prayer and the right to protest are protected here in New York City."
Critics of the measures said the changes did not ameliorate their concerns.
Donna Lieberman, the executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, called the bills “an attack on free speech and a surefire way to stifle constitutionally protected, peaceful political protest.”
“By deploying the NYPD to establish no-speech zones across all five boroughs, these bills will flood our streets with cops for no reason,” Lieberman said in a statement. “As the federal government targets, arrests, and even murders ordinary citizens for peaceful protest, New York City lawmakers should have defended the First Amendment — yes, even for ideas they don’t like — and rejected these ill-advised bills.”
Councilmember Eric Dinowitz, who sponsored the bill to address protests outside educational institutions, said the legislation would ensure "transparency and accountability” in how the NYPD responds to protests.
“If you are going to set up perimeters, then we in New York City deserve to know what the plan is,” Dinowitz said.
Police officials indicated that the legislation would not meaningfully change how the department operates.
During a public hearing in February, Michael Gerber, the NYPD’s deputy commissioner of legal matters, told the Council that in the absence of any buffer zones, the bills “would not change what we do day-to-day,” and would merely require the NYPD to develop a plan related to demonstrations.
“It would require us to articulate and put in words and on paper our approaches in these situations,” he said, referring to protests.
