OPINION AND ORDER Oksana Hulinsky (“Hulinsky”) and Regina Molinelli (“Molinelli”) commenced this action against the County of Westchester (“County” or “Defendant”) on August 15, 2022. (Doc. 1). Hulinsky and Molinelli added White Plains 40 Days for Life (“40 Days White Plains”) and 40 Days for Life (“40 Days National” and together, “Plaintiffs”) as Plaintiffs in this action on December 15, 2022 in a Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 50; Doc. 51; Doc. 52, “SAC”). Plaintiffs press three claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging that Chapter 425 of the Laws of Westchester County violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Specifically, Plaintiffs bring claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging (1) Defendant violated their First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly (Count I); (2) Chapter 425 is void for vagueness pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Count II); (3) Defendant violated their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion (Count III). (SAC
157-206). Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a) seeking to restrain and enjoin Defendant from “enforcing, threatening to enforce, attempting to enforce, or otherwise requiring compliance with” Sections 425.31(a), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (h) of Westchester County Local Law 9-2022, and the incorporated definitions of their operative terms. (Doc. 80). Plaintiffs moved on March 1, 2023 in accordance with the briefing schedule set by the Court. (Doc. 80). Plaintiffs filed a memorandum of law in support of their preliminary injunction motion (Doc. 80-1, “Pl. Br.”), Defendant filed a memorandum of law in opposition (Doc. 81, “Def. Br.”), and the motion was fully submitted upon the filing of Plaintiffs’ reply brief (Doc. 88, “Reply”). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED. BACKGROUND On June 27, 2022, Defendant enacted Local Law 9-2022, “adding Chapter 425 to the Laws of Westchester County to ensure safe access to reproductive health care facilities.” (Doc. 82-1, “Chapter 425″). The enactment of Chapter 425 was a response to escalating conduct occurring at reproductive healthcare clinics in Westchester County, for instance, blocking facility entrances; pushing past staff; and throwing objects at patients. (SAC, Ex. I at 12-20, Ex. N at 25-29). The specific precipitating event for the enactment of Chapter 425 was a November 21, 2021 sit-in demonstration organized by Red Rose Rescue, an anti-abortion activist group, at the All Women’s Medical Office Based Surgery, PLLC in White Plains, New York. (SAC, Ex. N at 24-27). Over twenty protestors from Red Rose Rescue pushed past staff to get inside the facility, blocked access to the doorways, and occupied the waiting room for several hours. (Id.). During the sit-in demonstration, Red Rose Rescue protestors photographed patients, threw roses at patients and staff, and shouted condemnations about “murdering babies.” (Id.). As a result of the sit-in, patients and staff needed to be moved and the facility’s operations were temporarily suspended. (Id.). Plaintiffs challenge six of the nine provisions of Chapter 425: Sections 425.31(a), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (h). (Doc. 80). Sections 425.31(a), (e), and (f) prohibit various forms of “physically obstructing or blocking” amount to interfering with and/or intimidating persons obtaining access at a reproductive health care facility.1 Section 425.31(c) prohibits “knowingly following and harassing” another person within 25 feet of a reproductive health care facility. Section 425.31(d) prohibits “knowingly engag[ing] in a course of conduct” within 25 feet of a reproductive health care facility that places another person in a “reasonable fear of physical harm.” Section 425.31(h) prohibits “knowingly interfer[ing] with the operation of a reproductive health care facility” by either interfering with “(i) medical procedures or treatments at the facility; (ii) the delivery of goods or services to the facility; or (iii) persons inside the facility.” Plaintiffs engage in a practice they refer to as “sidewalk counseling” wherein they will “peacefully approach[] expectant mothers and others entering or leaving the facilities to engage in short, quiet conversations at a normal conversational distance about alternatives to abortion, including offering literature on abortion alternatives, the physical and psychological risks of abortion, and on fetal development.” (SAC
