Zhang Jingrong v. Chinese Anti-Cult World Alliance, 311 F. Supp. 3d 514

Background

Thirteen plaintiffs (mostly Falun Gong practitioners) allege repeated verbal and physical attacks in Flushing, Queens by members of the Chinese Anti‑Cult World Alliance (CACWA) and individuals from ~2009–2015 while plaintiffs proselytized and exercised at tables and at a nearby spiritual center.
Plaintiffs claim assault & battery, bias‑related violence under N.Y. Civ. Rights Law §79‑n, interference with religious freedom under 18 U.S.C. §248 (FACEA), and a §1985(3) civil‑rights conspiracy (deprivation and hindrance clauses). Defendants assert counterclaims including assault/battery and disability‑based claims.
Extensive expert testimony (plaintiffs’ and defendants’) addressed whether Falun Gong qualifies as a religion under U.S. law. The court held, for litigation purposes, Falun Gong is a religion.
The court applied the continuing‑violations doctrine to save many claims from statute‑of‑limitations bars, but dismissed negligence, public nuisance, and certain IIED theories as redundant or unsupported.
The court rejected plaintiffs’ §1985(3) deprivation (First Amendment) claim because Supreme Court precedent requires state action (or its equivalent) for First Amendment rights under §1985(3) and the facts show no state supplanting or undue influence; it retained the FACEA and §79‑n claims and assault/battery for jury trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is Falun Gong a "religion" for purposes of constitutional and statutory claims?	Falun Gong occupies a role in adherents' lives parallel to orthodox theistic belief; it has doctrine, ritual, founder, and worship practices.	Falun Gong's founder disavows the label; many practices are political or quasi‑scientific, not religious.	Court: For purposes of this litigation, Falun Gong qualifies as a religion.
Does 18 U.S.C. §248 (FACEA) protect plaintiffs from violent interference at their street‑tables/temporary sites?	FACEA protects "any person lawfully exercising...First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship," and "place" must be interpreted broadly to include temporary/ public proselytizing sites.	Defendants urge a narrow reading limited to fixed structures to avoid unmanageable exposure.	Court: FACEA applies; temporary/ public sites used for worship/proselytizing here qualify as "places of religious worship." Claim goes to jury.
Is plaintiffs' §1985(3) deprivation‑clause claim (conspiracy to deprive First Amendment rights) viable absent state action?	Alleged conspiracy with ties to Chinese anti‑cult network deprived plaintiffs of rights (including intrastate travel); prior Second Circuit precedent recognized intrastate travel protection.	No state actors implicated; dispute is a localized private conflict; Supreme Court decisions (Scott, Bray) limit §1985(3) where asserted right is one protected only against state action.	Court: §1985(3) deprivation claim dismissed — First Amendment‑based deprivation requires state action/equivalent; Bray/Scott preclude recovery here.
Do plaintiffs state valid state‑law bias/assault claims (N.Y. Civ. Rights Law §79‑n; assault & battery)?	Plaintiffs show repeated physical attacks and inflammatory anti‑Falun Gong rhetoric supporting intent tied to religion/perception.	Defendants claim plaintiffs initiated violence and that disputes were political or reciprocal.	Court: Assault & battery and §79‑n bias claims survive summary judgment and will be tried; factual disputes (who struck whom, motive) are for the jury.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (recognizing courts may not decide truth of religious doctrines when assessing Free Exercise protections)
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (First Amendment protects freedom of conscience and belief)
United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (broad functional test for religious belief; conscience‑based beliefs can qualify)
Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333 (conscientious objections protected even if nontheistic)
Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (§1985(3) does not reach private conspiracies aimed at rights that are only enforceable against state action)
Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88 (§1985(3) private conspiracies actionable where class‑based animus exists; articulated limits)
United Brotherhood of Carpenters v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825 ( First Amendment‑based §1985(3) claims require state involvement when the right typically protects against state action)
Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (proselytizing and distribution of religious literature protected activity)
Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (belief in God not prerequisite for religious status under the Constitution)
Int'l Soc. for Krishna Consciousness v. Barber, 650 F.2d 430 (2d Cir.) (functional test: whether belief occupies role parallel to orthodox belief)
Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Jewish Community Relations Council, 968 F.2d 286 (2d Cir.) (recognition that discrimination based on religion can supply class‑based animus under §1985(3))
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (early limiting view of religion for Free Exercise contexts)
Collins v. Hardyman, 341 U.S. 651 (discussed state‑action concept in §1985 context)