New Jersey’s Bill A4652 (also known as S3507) has been a hot topic, aiming to update the state’s disorderly conduct laws. Its core purpose? To create a new offense called “inciting a public brawl” and stiffen penalties for certain types of disorderly conduct. The bill’s proponents argue these changes are vital to curb group violence and give law enforcement better tools to manage public disturbances.
However, this legislation has faced significant pushback from civil liberties organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations of New Jersey (CAIR-NJ), and even from Governor Phil Murphy himself. Their primary concern? The potential for the bill to infringe upon fundamental First Amendment rights.
Why the Alarm Bells Are Ringing
Critics have pinpointed several key issues with the original version of Bill A4652:
- Vague Language Threatens Free Speech: The initial bill’s wording was criticized for being overly broad and vague. For instance, it suggested that organizing a group of four or more people could be an offense if it “offends the sensibilities of a hearer”. This subjective language, critics argued, could give law enforcement too much power, potentially criminalizing peaceful protests or speech that is simply unpopular or uncomfortable, thereby “chilling” free expression.
- Chilling Effect on Peaceful Protest: With increased penalties—a fourth-degree crime for inciting a public brawl could mean up to 18 months in prison and a $10,000 fine—the vague definitions could deter individuals from participating in or organizing demonstrations, even if their actions are constitutionally protected.
- Disproportionate Impact on Marginalized Communities: Civil liberties advocates warned that the bill, if enacted as originally written, could worsen mass incarceration and disproportionately affect Black and brown communities. Historically, similar “anti-riot” laws have been used to suppress civil rights activism and dissent from minority groups, and this bill’s broad language could perpetuate such systemic biases.
- Mask-Wearing Concerns: The bill initially made it an offense to conceal one’s identity with a mask while engaging in disorderly conduct, if the purpose was to “hinder prosecution or avoid apprehension”. This raised concerns about inadvertently penalizing individuals wearing masks for legitimate reasons, such as medical necessity, religious observance, or expressive purposes. It is however, almost safe to say that 200 young adults showing up to a summer festival wearing masks are not doing so because of medical issues.
- Risk of “Guilt by Association”: A broader concern with anti-protest laws, including elements of A4652, is the potential for individuals to be held liable for the actions of others simply by being present or loosely associated with a group, even if they did not engage in any unlawful conduct themselves.
Governor Murphy’s Intervention: A Step Towards Balance
Recognizing these significant constitutional vulnerabilities, Governor Phil Murphy issued a conditional veto of the bill on May 8, 2025. He acknowledged the sponsors’ intent to deter group violence but emphasized the critical need to protect First Amendment rights.
Governor Murphy proposed several key amendments to address the concerns:
- Refining “Inciting a Public Brawl”: He recommended changing “organize or promote” to “incite” and adding “imminently” to align the bill with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Brandenburg v. Ohio standard. This standard requires that speech can only be prohibited as incitement if it is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” .
- Clarifying Mask-Wearing Provisions: Crucially, he proposed adding language to specify that “a person who wears a mask or disguise solely for medical, religious, or expressive purposes shall not be deemed to have acted with purpose to instill fear, hinder prosecution, or avoid apprehension” . This amendment aims to protect individuals wearing masks for legitimate reasons.
- Ensuring Proportionality: His recommendations also sought to prevent the bill from inadvertently punishing nonviolent actions more harshly than violent incitement .
A National Trend
The criticisms leveled against NJ Bill A4652 are not unique to New Jersey. Across the United States, there’s a growing trend of “anti-protest laws” that often feature vague definitions, extreme penalties, and expanded liability, raising similar concerns about their potential to suppress peaceful demonstrations.
The Path Forward
The legislative journey of NJ Bill A4652 highlights the ongoing challenge of balancing public safety with fundamental civil liberties. While the goal of preventing violence is valid, the methods employed must be carefully crafted to avoid infringing upon the constitutional rights of free speech and assembly. Governor Murphy’s conditional veto and proposed amendments represent a crucial effort to refine the bill and ensure it upholds these essential democratic principles.
