Firm matter — FACE Act protection for houses of worship
Javitch Law Office is counsel to Plaintiff in Helmann v. CodePink.
Attorney Advertising | Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome
On August 13, 2025, U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the Central District of California denied CodePink's motion to dismiss a Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act) claim brought by our client arising from the June 23, 2024 blockade of the Adas Torah Synagogue in the Pico-Robertson neighborhood of Los Angeles. Helmann v. CodePink Women for Peace, et al., No. 2:24-cv-05704-SVW-PVC (C.D. Cal.). The court set the remaining claims for trial.
What happened at Adas Torah
According to the Third Amended Complaint, the synagogue hosted its regular daily prayer services on June 23, 2024, along with a special "Aliyah Event" presenting opportunities to purchase homes in Israel — an event the plaintiff alleges held religious significance for many attendees. Our client, Plaintiff Ronen Helmann — joined by co-plaintiffs Noah Pollak and StandWithUs Center for Legal Justice — alleges he tried to enter the synagogue to attend the event, prayer services, or both.
The complaint alleges that more than 200 people marched into the neighborhood shortly before the event and physically obstructed access to the synagogue, and that chaos and violence followed. These are allegations; the court accepted them as true only for purposes of deciding the motions to dismiss.
The social media posts
Two days before the event, CodePink's Los Angeles chapters posted on Instagram urging followers to protest "A MEGA ZIONIST REAL ESTATE EVENT." The posts placed the synagogue's name, the date, and the address inside an inverted red triangle. Plaintiff alleges that symbol is used by Hamas to celebrate violence against Jews and as a "target designator" to identify Jewish targets.
The Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM) separately posted a call to protest, declaring "OUR LAND IS NOT FOR SALE" and "FROM THE BELLY OF THE BEAST NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE."
The court's ruling
Holding
CodePink's social media post instigating a riot is not protected by the First Amendment. The post targeting the Adas Torah Synagogue plausibly alleged a "threat of force" under the FACE Act, and the motion to dismiss was denied.
CodePink: the FACE Act claim proceeds
The FACE Act, 18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(2), prohibits using force, threat of force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, or interfere with anyone exercising the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship. The court reaffirmed its earlier ruling that, taking Plaintiff's allegations about the red triangle as true, CodePink's post plausibly stated a threat of force under the FACE Act.
The court compared the red triangle to the "GUILTY" posters in Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists, 290 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2002) — a coded message that can be a true threat in context. It also held that the red triangle could plausibly be an attempt to intimidate Jewish worshippers from going to the synagogue, or to incite others to disrupt access, either of which satisfies the FACE Act's intent element. Disputes over what the symbol actually means, the court said, are for later — "it is a jury question whether actions and communications are clearly outside the ambit of First Amendment protection."
The court did not accept the separate theory that CodePink ratified individual protestors' acts, but the threat-of-force theory was enough to deny CodePink's motion.
PYM: dismissed
The court reached a different result for PYM and two of its organizers. It found PYM's post, while political and inflammatory, contained no specific coded threat comparable to the red triangle, and that Plaintiff had not alleged an agency relationship between PYM and the individual protestors. Those claims were dismissed with prejudice.
Why this matters for synagogues and congregations
- Online targeting can be a FACE Act threat. A post that singles out a house of worship with a recognized threatening symbol may support liability for the organization that posted it — not just the people who physically block the door.
- Context and symbols matter. The distinction between CodePink and PYM turned on whether the post carried a specific threatening meaning, not simply whether it was hostile.
- Organizer liability requires more than a call to protest. To hold an organization responsible for protestors' conduct, a plaintiff must plead facts showing control or agency.
- Preserve the evidence. Screenshots of pre-event posts, videos of the blockade, and witness accounts were central to the pleadings.
Learn more on our FACE Act lawyer page and antisemitism practice. Background reporting is available from Jewish Legal News.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the FACE Act protect synagogues and churches?
Yes. Although best known for protecting reproductive health clinics, 18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(2) also protects people exercising religious freedom at any place of religious worship, and § 248(a)(3) covers intentional damage to such property.
Can a social media post violate the FACE Act?
It can if it amounts to a true "threat of force" made with the required intent. In Helmann v. CodePink, the court held a post placing a synagogue inside an inverted red triangle plausibly alleged a threat, while a different protest post without a comparable coded threat did not.
What is the status of Helmann v. CodePink?
As of the August 13, 2025 order, the claims against CodePink survived dismissal and were set for trial; claims against PYM and two organizers were dismissed. No finding of liability was made — the court only ruled on the sufficiency of the allegations.
What remedies are available under the FACE Act?
Private plaintiffs may seek injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, or statutory damages of $5,000 per violation in lieu of actual damages, plus attorney's fees and costs.
This article describes a court ruling on a motion to dismiss. Allegations described are those of the plaintiffs and have not been proven. This is not legal advice.