DC Court Rejects Anti-Stalking Order Against Rabbi in Israel Protest Dispute

A three-judge panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals on Monday upheld a lower-court ruling that Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld was not entitled to a civil anti-stalking order against two pro-Palestinian demonstrators whose protest activities he opposed outside the Israeli Embassy.

The unanimous decision by Judges Roy McLeese, Corinne Beckwith and John Howard concluded that Herzfeld’s testimony did not meet the legal standard for stalking under District of Columbia law. The ruling in Rokhvand v. Herzfeld reaffirmed that expressing opposition to speech or conduct, even when vociferous, does not constitute the repeated, willful pattern of behavior required for a protective order.

The case stemmed from three separate encounters between Herzfeld and the two women—protesters Sarah Barmada and Samah Rokhvada—at the embassy’s public sidewalk between March and May 2024. Herzfeld, spiritual leader of a Washington congregation and founder of a local Jewish school, testified that he had gone to the embassy on the Jewish holiday of Purim to pray for Israeli hostages held by Hamas, only to encounter large signs, amplified chants and noise machines decrying Israel’s military response in Gaza.

In the first incident, Barmada told police that a group including Herzfeld walked slowly through the protest while he allegedly called her a “Hamas supporter,” “terrorist” and accused her of supporting violence against women and children. Another man in the group, according to Barmada, referred to her as a “Nazi bitch” and suggested she “go to the concentration camp.” Herzfeld testified that he did not use those epithets and that the noise from the megaphones prevented him from speaking clearly. He denied directing insults and said he was attempting to draw a religious parallel to the biblical story of Esther.

Herzfeld subsequently filed a federal lawsuit against the two women alleging assault and a noise-related injury. He also gave a Fox News interview describing the episode as part of a broader pattern of threats against Jews. Media coverage of the suit publicly named Rokhvada, who was not present at the first protest, and she later testified that the suit and ensuing publicity left her feeling targeted as a Palestinian rights activist.

A second incident occurred the day after the women were served with Herzfeld’s federal complaint. Barmada told police that a slow-moving car approached the protest site and that Herzfeld, seated in the passenger seat, stared at her with “a very taunting look,” then rolled down the window and asked, “How come you support people raping innocent women?” before driving away. Rokhvada corroborated that she saw Herzfeld in the vehicle.

In a third encounter several weeks later, Barmada said Herzfeld again approached the protest while holding what she believed was a knife, leading her to call 911. Herzfeld testified that he had brought a pocket-sized prayer book and wanted to show it to the protesters but that the interaction was brief and non-confrontational. Police did not file charges.

The appeals court found that none of the three incidents, viewed individually or together, rose to the level of a credible threat or repeated pattern of conduct required for a civil anti-stalking injunction under D.C. Code § 22-3133. The judges noted that while the encounters were heated and upsetting, they did not amount to the persistent harassment necessary to justify a protective order.

“Disagreement and heated speech, even when offensive or distressing, do not per se constitute stalking under District law,” the court wrote. It emphasized that the statute requires a showing of repeated, willful behavior directed at a specific individual with the intent to cause fear. The opinion did not address the merits of Herzfeld’s federal lawsuit.