Judge Weighs Impact of Religious Freedom Laws on Tucson Raytheon Protesters’ Legal Shield

A Pima County Superior Court judge is considering whether to dismiss trespassing charges against four individuals arrested during a November 2023 protest at the University of Arizona’s Tech Park. The defendants, Jacyln Hubersberger, Katherine Oftedahl, Josie Shapiro, and Seth Wispelwey, argued that their actions were protected under state and federal laws safeguarding religious freedom.

During a hearing on Monday, attorney Greg Kuykendall asserted that Judge Richard G. Gordon should accept a special action petition to dismiss the third-degree trespassing charges. The protest took place in response to the activities of Raytheon Missiles & Defense, which became a focal point for demonstrations due to its role in producing weaponry used in the conflict involving Gaza.

Raytheon’s involvement in the defense sector, specifically regarding missiles deployed by Israel, has drawn significant scrutiny. Kuykendall’s motion references the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act, which stipulate that the government may not impose substantial burdens on a person’s religious practices without compelling justification.

Initially addressed by Justice of the Peace Ray Carroll in Green Valley, the case was escalated to the Superior Court after the defendants sought to dismiss it. Kuykendall claimed their protest constituted a sincere religious conviction as they aimed to prevent wrongdoing. He indicated that the protesters stood together at a shipping entrance, singing and praying before being informed they were trespassing.

Furthermore, Kuykendall noted that Shapiro is an observant Jew engaged in rabbinical studies, motivated by the Talmud’s teachings on preventing harm. Wispelwey, an ordained minister present at the protest, participated out of a belief in the sanctity of life amidst the violence in Gaza. Thus, the legal team’s argument hinges on their religious convictions being infringed by the charges.

The attorneys highlighted that the Arizona government failed to demonstrate that prosecuting the four for a “brief and peaceable” protest aligned with the least restrictive means of enforcing a compelling governmental interest. Notably, they suggested that law enforcement could have employed alternative measures to manage the protest without resorting to arrests.

The case has gained broader relevance against the backdrop of intensified scrutiny of protests regarding U.S. involvement in international conflicts. Following the protest on November 30, members of the Tucson Coalition for Palestine blocked access to the Tech Park, showcasing public dissent against corporate entities involved in military operations.

During the protest, law enforcement arrested approximately 25 individuals, including KJZZ reporter Alicia Reznick. Despite clearly displaying her press credentials, Reznick faced arrest alongside protesters and was subsequently cited for criminal trespassing. These events raise questions about the treatment of journalists during civil demonstrations.

Kuykendall emphasized the report of past cases where similar arguments regarding religious freedom proved successful in the courts, urging the judge to consider these precedents. The hearing also underscored the tension surrounding religious freedoms versus property rights, with attorneys debating whether the prosecution infringes on the defendants’ right to religious expression.

The arguments put forth by both sides suggest ongoing legal complexities, particularly concerning the intersection of activism and the law. Judge Gordon’s upcoming decision could set a significant precedent for future protests as it navigates the delicate balance between protecting private property rights and upholding fundamental freedoms of expression.

With Judge Gordon stating he will deliberate on the matter further, both parties have been asked to provide supplementary briefs regarding similar trespassing cases. The legal discourse surrounding this case reflects broader societal debates about protest rights and governmental authority in the context of current events.