Mamdani’s First Veto Nixes School Protest “Buffer Zone” Bill

Some days you eat the bear, and some days the bear eats you. This famous saying and its variants might well apply to Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s and the Julie Menin-led City Council, as Hizzoner wielded his veto pen against one protest “buffer zone” bill, involving educational institutions while signing another, protecting houses of worship, into law.

This split result less reflects Mamdani’s personal feelings than cold political reality. The houses of worship “buffer zone” bill, formally known as Intro 0001-2026— meaning it was the first bill submitted this year— passed with a veto proof majority. Of the council’s current 50 members, the vote tally was 44-5-1.

All nine current Manhattan members voted in favor of the bill. (The borough’s tenth seat, formerly held by Erik Botthcer, remains open pending the April 28 special election the results of which were not known as we went to press. One of the four candiates for the open seat, Layla Law-Gisiko has said she would oppose the over ride while Leslie Boylan and Carl Wilson would support an override.

The five opponents included four Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), including (Tiffany Cabán, Shana Hanif, Alexa Aviles and Chi Ossé) who have expressed anti-Israel/pro-Palestine sentiments in the past and one other Democrat, Kayla Santosuosso of Brooklyn. Local observers suggest Santosuosso’s vote reflects her debt to an overlapping but not identical mix of progressive and pro-Palestinian blocs in the Bay Ridge section of her district.

Althea Stevens of the Bronx was the one abstention.

School’s Out

The school buffer zone bill, began life as Int 0175-2026, “A plan regarding security perimeters adjacent to educational facilities.” Introduced by Eric Dinowitz of the Bronx, the bill passed in revised form as Int. 175-B on March 26 by a vote of 30-19-1.

Of Manhattan’s nine Council Members, the tally was 6-2-1. Voting in favor of the bill were Virginia Maloney, Shaun Abreu, Yusef Salaam, Elsie Encarcion (whose Upper East Side / East Harlem district is split with the South Bronx), Julie Menin, and Christopher Marte.

Voting against the bill were Harvey Epstein and Carmen De La Rosa, while Gale Brewer was the one abstention.

Looking at the bill’s other opponents suggests a split more between the left and the far left, rather than one based on geography or ethnicity. Notable Black council members like Mercedes Narcisse of Brooklyn and Ty Hankerson, of Queens, voted in favor of it, while Black Brooklyn progressives Crystal Hudson and Sandy Nurse voted against it.

Similarly, among East Asian council members, Susan Zhuang of Brooklyn and Sandra Ung from heavily ethnic districts voted in favor of the bill, while Julie Won, whose Queens district includes strong progressive blocs in Astoria, Long Island City and Sunnyside voted against it.

Everyone not in favor of the houses of worship buffer zone bill also opposed the school’s version.

Of the 23 members of Council’s Progressive Caucus’ three crossed ideological lines and voted in favor of the bill: Christopher Marte, Elsie Encarnacion, and Shanel Thomas-Henry of Queens.

Mamdani’s Veto

Excerpts from the Mayor’s veto letter of April 24 (he also made a video) follow:

“Over these past few weeks, I have heard from activists and community-based organizations, civil and reproductive rights groups, faith leaders and congregations, labor advocates and unions, education workers and students, and many other New Yorkers regardingtheir concerns about this legislation and its potential impact on them.

I disapprove Int. 175-B because it risks treading unnecessarily on New Yorkers’ constitutional rights. Moreover, the bill frames student protest as primarily a security concern, a premise I do not accept.

Int. 175-B implicates New Yorkers’ fundamental rights. The First Amendment right to free speech and assembly-the right to protest—is a core U.S. constitutional principle. When people protest outside a school or another educational facility, that right is in play. There is no equivalent and countervailing constitutional right, such as the right to worship, that must be weighed. In that light, this bill raises the risk of encroachment on New Yorkers’ fundamental right to protest.

This prospect is all the more concerning given the scope and potential reach of Int. 175-B. The bill defines “educational facility” expansively, to encompass any place in New York City, “where educational programming takes place,” whether private or public, school or not. This definition includes museums, community centers, teaching hospitals, private event spaces, schools and universities— anywhere New Yorkers are learning in an organized way. This would bear on New Yorkers right to protest across the city, with particular impact on the ability of unions and other labor activists to organize.

On college campuses, the bill would increase the risk of immigration consequences for immigrant student activists by raising the odds that they might come into contact with the criminal legal system during student protests. As a result, Int. 175-B would also chill immigrant students’ constitutionally protected speech.

For the foregoing reasons, I hereby disapprove Introductory No. 175-B.

Questions—and Opportunities—Remain

Whether Council Speaker Menin will seek to override the Mayor’s veto is unclear. “Ensuring students can enter and exit their schools without fear of harassment or intimidation should not be controversial,” Menin asserted in a statement. “This bill simply requires the NYPD to clearly outline how it will ensure safe access when there are threats of obstruction or physical injury, while fully protecting First Amendment rights.”