The Justice Department may amend its complaint after a judge found insufficient allegations connecting the defendants’ conduct to unlawful interference with religious worship at an event involving Israeli real estate and religious activities.
WEST ORANGE, NJ – A federal judge has dismissed the Justice Department’s civil claims against four people and two organizations over a Nov. 13, 2024, protest at Congregation Ohr Torah, finding that the government had not adequately alleged how each defendant violated a federal law protecting religious worship. The government may submit an amended complaint.
In a 31-page opinion issued Sept. 30, 2026, U.S. District Judge Katharine S. Hayden found that allegations of a physical confrontation, protest organizing and participation in a crowd did not, as pleaded, establish a viable claim under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, commonly called the FACE Act.
The case concerns a pro-Palestinian demonstration at an event the government described as combining an Israeli real estate fair with religious observances. Federal lawyers alleged that protesters threatened and assaulted Jewish attendees, obstructed access and disrupted worship. The defendants challenged both the account of their conduct and the government’s attempt to hold them liable under the statute.
Hayden wrote: “The FACE Act does not impose liability for disruptive, offensive, or hostile advocacy as such.”
The dismissal was without prejudice, giving federal lawyers another opportunity to correct the complaint’s deficiencies. Hayden allowed an amended complaint within 30 days of the accompanying order and asked the government to clarify when the religious activities became part of the event.
The ruling concerned whether the complaint contained enough factual allegations to proceed. It did not resolve competing accounts of the confrontation at a trial, determine that every action during the protest was lawful or acquit anyone of a crime. This was a civil enforcement case.
The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division filed the complaint on Sept. 29, 2025. It named American Muslims for Palestine New Jersey, Party for Socialism and Liberation New Jersey and four individuals, along with an unidentified woman and man listed as Jane Doe and John Doe. The Sept. 30 opinion’s conclusion expressly dismisses the claim against each of the six named defendants who moved for dismissal.
The dispute began with an event organized by Moshe Glick, a West Orange dentist. According to the complaint, he initially planned to hold an Israeli real estate fair and a spiritual event at his home, in a room he used for communal prayer and study. The government described the gathering as centered on a Jewish religious obligation to live in Israel.
The protest organizers opposed the real estate event. A social media image reproduced in the complaint advertised a demonstration against what its organizers called land theft, giving participants a meeting time and the intersection of Ellis Street and Forest Avenue in West Orange. The posts also reproduced a flyer advertising the real estate event.
On or about Nov. 4, 2024, according to the complaint, Tova Fry, also identified as Terry Kay, delivered a letter demanding that Glick cancel the event or face legal action. The government said a doorbell camera recorded her delivering the letter and photographing the house from the street. It alleged that Glick interpreted those actions as threatening, particularly in light of earlier incidents involving Jewish gatherings.
The complaint said Glick’s security team later advised that it could not guarantee his safety at home, citing the letter and a Nov. 7 protest in Bergenfield that the government characterized as violent. Glick moved the event to Congregation Ohr Torah, a short walk away, in coordination with police, security personnel and Jewish community organizations.
At the synagogue, the event was to include prayer, a memorial for Rabbi Avi Goldberg, a Torah sermon, religious songs and dancing, instruction about living in Israel, a real estate fair and a barbecue, according to the complaint. The government characterized those activities as part of the religious observance.
Federal lawyers alleged that approximately 50 protesters initially gathered near Glick’s home on Nov. 13. At about 6:50 p.m., after learning of the relocation, they walked toward the synagogue. The complaint accused the crowd of pushing through a police line near an adjacent fire station, entering synagogue property and blowing long plastic horns called vuvuzelas loudly enough to drown out the memorial service and sermon.
The government’s account then described a confrontation involving Glick, Altaf Sharif, an unidentified woman and David Silberberg, whom the complaint identified as a 65-year-old worshiper.
According to the complaint, the woman blew a horn directly into Glick’s ear, and he swatted it away. Sharif then blew his horn close to Glick’s face; Glick grabbed and swatted that horn away, too. Federal lawyers alleged that Sharif subsequently charged at Glick with the intent to hurt him.
The complaint said Eric Camins initially extended a hand and shook his head to stop Sharif. Silberberg then sprayed Sharif with pepper spray, which the government described as an effort to protect Glick. Afterward, Camins allegedly pointed toward Silberberg and shouted, “The Jew is here!”
Federal lawyers accused Sharif of grabbing Silberberg around the neck, throwing him to the ground, dragging him down a hill toward the synagogue parking lot and driving his head into the ground. The complaint said Glick struck Sharif with a flashlight, loosening his hold enough for others to free Silberberg.
The government also alleged that protesters shouted threats, that an unidentified protester deployed a stink bomb, and that the crowd blocked a sidewalk, leaving attendees to pass through protesters or enter a busy road. It said some people stayed away out of fear and that worshipers moved the service elsewhere on synagogue property. Those descriptions were the government’s allegations, which the dismissal ruling did not establish as proven facts.
The confrontation also produced separate state criminal proceedings. Hayden noted that Glick and Silberberg had faced state charges arising from the incident. Then-Gov. Phil Murphy pardoned Glick on Jan. 20, 2026, as New Jersey Monitor reported and Glick subsequently confirmed in testimony before the federal Religious Liberty Commission. Glick maintained that he intervened to protect Silberberg. He had not been convicted. Hayden’s September ruling addressed the federal civil claims against the protesters and organizations.
The federal lawsuit requested substantial restrictions on future demonstrations. Its proposed permanent injunction would have prohibited the defendants and people acting with them from violating the FACE Act at Ohr Torah or any other place of religious worship in New Jersey.
It also requested approximately 50-by-50-foot buffer zones outside the synagogue’s main entrance and Glick’s home, and a prohibition on entering synagogue property. Another proposed restriction would have barred organizing, participating in or promoting demonstrations within 500 feet of a place of worship during religious services or events when the demonstration lacked a valid permit and was intended to disrupt or intimidate worshipers.
The complaint sought statutory compensatory damages for people harmed by the alleged violations and civil penalties against each defendant of $31,670 for a first violation and $52,786 for each subsequent violation. These were remedies the government requested; the opinion did not award them.
Although its name refers to clinics, the FACE Act also protects people exercising or seeking to exercise religious freedom at places of worship. The provision invoked here prohibits intentional injury, intimidation or interference, including attempts, accomplished through force, threats of force or physical obstruction.
The law defines interference as restricting someone’s freedom of movement, intimidation as placing someone in reasonable fear of bodily harm, and physical obstruction as making passage impossible or unreasonably difficult or hazardous. It also expressly preserves peaceful demonstrations and other expression protected by the First Amendment.
Hayden applied the standard for a motion to dismiss: the court accepts properly pleaded factual allegations as true for that limited purpose, draws reasonable inferences in the government’s favor and asks whether the facts support a plausible legal claim. Labels and conclusions alone do not satisfy that requirement.
For Sharif, the judge found that the complaint described an escalating physical confrontation without adequately connecting his alleged force to intentional interference with religious exercise. The government needed facts showing that the conduct was directed at injuring, intimidating or interfering with Glick’s or Silberberg’s exercise or attempted exercise of religion.
The fact that a fight occurred on synagogue grounds while religious activities were planned or underway did not automatically make it a FACE Act violation, Hayden explained. She also found that the complaint failed to identify conduct tying Sharif personally to the alleged sidewalk obstruction.
Sharif had argued that video contradicted the government’s account and showed that demonstrators did not enter synagogue property or obstruct access. Hayden declined to consider the defense-submitted recordings and annotated map, finding that their completeness, context and relationship to the complaint could not be treated as undisputed. His dismissal therefore did not rest on a judicial determination that the video proved his account.
For Camins, the government argued that his alleged statement identifying Silberberg encouraged an imminent attack. Hayden found insufficient context to support that inference, including no facts showing that Camins and Sharif were acting together or that Camins intentionally used the words to bring about prohibited force.
The complaint’s own account said Camins had tried to stop Sharif moments earlier. Hayden concluded that treating the subsequent statement as incitement required speculation beyond the facts alleged.
For Fry, Hayden distinguished a threat of litigation from a threat of physical violence. The letter warned of legal action over an event its signatories considered unlawful. The judge found that its contents did not communicate an intent to cause bodily harm.
Photographing the house from a public street did not, on the allegations presented, supply the missing threat. Hayden also noted that the complaint did not actually allege Fry had published Glick’s address or participated in earlier violence cited by the government.
The government’s theory that Fry forced the event out of Glick’s home had another deficiency: the complaint did not adequately allege that the room qualified as a place of religious worship under the FACE Act. Hayden said the complaint described prayer books and prior gatherings but did not allege that religious adherents collectively recognized it, or religious leadership designated it, as a space primarily for worship.
At the synagogue protest, the only specific action attributed to Fry was asking Matt Dragon where the entrance was. Hayden found no factual allegations that Fry personally blocked a door or walkway, touched a worshiper or otherwise committed the conduct necessary for the claim.
The allegations against Dragon were similarly insufficient, Hayden found. The complaint repeatedly described him as leading the crowd but did not explain what he did to direct it, cause people to stay away or force the service to move. His specifically described conduct was telling Fry that the synagogue was the next building over.
Hayden found no sufficiently pleaded facts that Dragon personally used force, threatened anyone, obstructed passage or directed others to obstruct it. Describing the crowd collectively as disruptive did not establish his individual liability.
For American Muslims for Palestine New Jersey and Party for Socialism and Liberation New Jersey, the government relied principally on protest promotion through social media. Hayden found that the posts called for political advocacy without threatening violence or identifying someone for attack.
The allegation that AMP encouraged participants to wear masks did not itself establish force, a threat of force or obstruction. Nor did it show that either organization directed, authorized or participated in later unlawful conduct. General allegations about previous protests and affiliated organizations failed to establish responsibility by the particular New Jersey organizations being sued.
Several larger disputes remained unresolved. Hayden did not decide PSL-NJ’s argument that the lawsuit was retaliation for pro-Palestinian advocacy. She also did not decide Fry’s contention that the real estate fair was commercial activity outside the religious protections asserted by the government, because the allegations concerning Fry’s own conduct were already insufficient.
The opinion described arguments from StandWithUs and First Liberty Institute, which filed a supporting brief for the government. They maintained that courts should not judge the religious character of the event and that the law’s protections extended to synagogue grounds and access routes. Hayden did not resolve whether the crowd-wide allegations about noise, grounds or sidewalk access could establish a violation without the missing connections to individual defendants.
The court also rejected Dragon’s separate argument that alleged international-law violations associated with the real estate event deprived it of jurisdiction. Hayden said the court had authority to hear a federal statutory claim brought by the United States; that conclusion did not decide the legality of any property transaction.
In permitting an amended complaint, Hayden specifically requested clarification about the event’s schedule: whether the synagogue’s religious services had been planned before the real estate fair moved there, or whether the services and other activities were added after the relocation. Any amended pleading must also address the deficiencies the opinion identified in the allegations against each defendant.