WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 2264

Criminal Offenses - As introduced, creates the Class B misdemeanor offense of interfering with a religious institution if a person acts to intentionally obstruct, disturb, or interfere with the activities of the religious institution by making an utterance, gesture, or display in a manner that is offensive to the sensibilities of an ordinary person, either within the place where the meeting is held or so near it as to disturb the order and solemnity of the activities; defines "religious institution" as a church, temple, synagogue, mosque, or other place of worship. - Amends TCA Title 39 and Title 40.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by Greg Martin

Tennessee bill criminalizes offensive utterances, gestures, or displays that disturb religious worship activities as Class B misdemeanor, raising free speech and vagueness concerns.

Taken off notice for cal in s/c Finance, Ways, and Means Subcommittee of Finance, Ways, and Means Committee
#criminaloffenses
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 2264

Legislative bill overview

HB 2264 creates a new Class B misdemeanor in Tennessee for interfering with religious institutions through offensive utterances, gestures, or displays that disturb worship activities, either inside the place of worship or nearby. The bill defines "religious institution" broadly to include churches, temples, synagogues, mosques, and other places of worship, and amends Tennessee's criminal code and criminal procedure statutes.

Why is this important

This legislation directly affects First Amendment protections by potentially criminalizing speech and conduct near places of worship. It could impact protesters, counter-protesters, and others engaging in expressive activity, while also raising questions about how "offensive to an ordinary person" will be defined and enforced in practice.

Potential points of contention

  • Free speech concerns: The "offensive to sensibilities of an ordinary person" standard is subjective and could criminalize protected speech, potentially violating First Amendment rights; courts have historically scrutinized such vague standards
  • Scope and proximity issues: The phrase "so near it as to disturb" is ambiguous—it's unclear how far from the building the restriction extends or what level of disruption triggers criminal liability
  • Selective enforcement risk: Broad discretion in prosecution could lead to disparate enforcement against certain groups or viewpoints, particularly affecting minority religions or unpopular protest activities

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.