Lawsuit claims coordinated protests aimed at churches and synagogues over support for Israel violated federal protections for religious worship
Worship services at The Mission Church in Carlsbad and events hosted by the Christian and Jewish Alliance were repeatedly disrupted by activists opposed to their support of Israel, according to a federal lawsuit filed November 4, 2025, in the Southern District of California.
The plaintiffs—The Mission Church, the Christian & Jewish Alliance, and Ruth Mastron, a Jewish community member—claim that protesters targeted them because of their religious beliefs that include support for Israel. The lawsuit accuses several named individuals and unnamed “Doe” defendants of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, 18 U.S.C. § 248, which protects access to religious worship.
The FACE Act prohibits the use of force, threat of force, or physical obstruction to interfere with anyone lawfully exercising their right to religious worship at a place of worship. While the law is more commonly known for protecting access to reproductive health clinics, Congress expanded its scope in 1994 to cover religious institutions.
According to the 42-page complaint, protesters infiltrated or surrounded religious events on three separate occasions in 2025, shouting into bullhorns, blocking entrances and exits, physically confronting attendees, and recording worshippers’ faces. The plaintiffs allege these actions amounted to intimidation and obstruction under the statute.
The March 19 incident allegedly involved coordinated disruption inside and outside the sanctuary during a joint Christian-Jewish prayer event, with protesters impersonating attendees to gain access and shout down the speakers. On Easter Sunday, activists returned with signs and bullhorns, reportedly targeting children in the church parking lot. A third disruption occurred on September 7 at a Christian and Jewish Alliance event in San Diego, where the complaint claims protesters blocked vehicles, jumped on a car, and blared sirens throughout the outdoor worship.
One plaintiff said she was physically and emotionally harmed during the September 7 event. The complaint alleges that a masked protester jumped onto her car and pounded the windshield as she and her husband tried to enter the event. She says the incident left her with anxiety and a sense of being unsafe in her community.
The plaintiffs argue that the protests were not protected free speech, but calculated efforts to intimidate people based on their religious convictions. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, damages, and attorney’s fees.
The FACE Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 248, allows both civil and criminal penalties against anyone who “intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with… any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship.” The plaintiffs contend that the defendants’ conduct meets all elements of this statute.
The complaint identifies Daniel Brunner and Aimee Magda Werth as organizers who recruited participants and promised to continue the protests. Social media posts cited in the lawsuit show defendants boasting about their actions and threatening further disruptions.
No criminal charges have been filed at this stage, and none of the defendants have responded in court. A pro hac vice motion is pending for out-of-state counsel representing the plaintiffs.
A jury trial has been requested.
Case caption: Christian and Jewish Alliance Inc., et al. v. Daniel Brunner, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-02992-W-AHG (S.D. Cal., filed Nov. 4, 2025)
Full complaint: Link to FACE Act text
TLDR (Too Long / Didn’t Read Summary)
Three plaintiffs—a Carlsbad church, a local interfaith alliance, and a Jewish woman—have filed a federal lawsuit under the FACE Act alleging that activists disrupted multiple worship services in 2025 due to the plaintiffs’ support for Israel. The complaint, filed in the Southern District of California, details repeated acts of physical obstruction, harassment, and intimidation that allegedly violated federal protections for religious worship. It seeks damages and a court order to prevent future disruptions. The FACE Act, often used in clinic-access cases, also applies to houses of worship.
Commentary
This lawsuit marks a rare but increasingly visible application of the FACE Act beyond abortion clinic protests. Though the statute’s main association has historically been with reproductive health access, its explicit inclusion of “places of religious worship” gives it broader scope. The plaintiffs are relying on the statute’s civil enforcement mechanism, which is available to private individuals and institutions, not just the Department of Justice.
Their case will hinge on whether the court finds the alleged conduct rose to the level of “intimidation” or “interference” under federal law. Blocking entrances, physical altercations, and noise disruptions may satisfy that threshold if the facts are as alleged. However, courts also scrutinize whether the actions occurred on private property or public sidewalks, and to what extent First Amendment protections apply. The defendants are likely to claim they were engaged in lawful protest, so the case could turn on whether their conduct crossed from expression into targeted obstruction and harassment.
The plaintiffs’ inclusion of video evidence and specific identifications from social media could strengthen their case. Courts tend to take a closer look at repeated or coordinated activity that appears calculated to suppress religious activity. The fact that plaintiffs canceled events and beefed up security also suggests a real impact.
The FACE Act has criminal penalties too, but this lawsuit is civil. If it proceeds, it may provide a roadmap for other faith groups seeking to respond to religiously motivated disruption. It also raises timely questions about the limits of protest, especially when directed at communities during worship.
Follow and share this story
Stay up to date on cases like this by subscribing to ReligiousLiberty.TV, where we provide early access to breaking religious liberty litigation, court decisions, and commentary. Like, share, and subscribe to support independent legal reporting that protects your rights.
Disclaimer: This report is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you are involved in a similar situation or need legal assistance, consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.
AI Disclaimer: This article was prepared with assistance from AI.
SEO Tags: FACE Act religious worship, 18 USC 248, church protest lawsuit, religious liberty Carlsbad, Christian and Jewish Alliance California
- Source: ReligiousLibertyTV on Substack
