Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Freedom Of Religion And Speech topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

House OKs felony penalty for deliberate disruption of worship services amid free-speech concerns

Alabama House of Representatives · February 24, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The House passed HB363, creating a criminal offense for knowingly entering a place of worship with intent to disrupt and engaging in defined disruptive conduct; supporters described it as protecting religious assembly, while opponents warned it could chill protected speech and duplicate existing law.

The Alabama House passed House Bill 363 on Feb. 24, 2026, a measure that makes entering a place of worship with the intent to disrupt and then engaging in certain conduct a criminal offense and prescribes class C felony penalties in specified circumstances.

Sponsor Rep. Barnes described the bill as narrowly tailored "to protect the houses of worship" and to add legal consequences for those who knowingly enter a worship setting with intent to disrupt, harass or interfere with religious practice. He said the measure is not aimed at peaceful protest but at those who would intentionally riot or cause harm during worship.

Several members pushed back on the scope and penalties. Representative Sellers filed a formal dissent on the floor, calling the measure "redundant and overbroad criminalization" that risks chilling peaceful protests and duplicates existing offenses such as trespass, disorderly conduct and riot. He warned the use of a felony charge for first-time/lesser conduct could have disproportionate collateral consequences.

Other critics noted enforcement and intent problems; members asked how police would determine a person's intent and whether existing misdemeanor or civil remedies are adequate. Supporters said the bill is a preemptive measure in response to episodes elsewhere where journalists and demonstrators entered sanctuaries during protests.

The House adopted a substitute that trimmed aspects of the original penalty provision and then passed final passage by recorded vote (75 ayes, 27 nays). The sponsor said the bill is intended to give worshippers additional protections and to provide clear notice of consequences for intentional disruption.

The bill's floor debate included extended constitutional and free-speech concerns; proponents described it as protecting worship, opponents described it as overreach that could be used unevenly in practice.