Supreme Court Declines to Review Abortion Clinic Protest-Free Zones
Supreme Court Passes on Opportunity to Overturn Protest Restrictions
Washington, DC – The Supreme Court has declined to hear challenges to protest-free zones around abortion clinics, upholding a 2000 precedent that allows for such restrictions. The court’s decision not to intervene potentially emboldens municipalities to enact similar measures to protect access to reproductive healthcare.
Background: Hill v. Colorado and its Precedents
In a 2000 decision known as Hill v. Colorado, the Supreme Court ruled that Colorado could restrict individuals from approaching within 8 feet of another person within a 100-foot zone surrounding a health care facility. This decision established that states have a compelling interest in protecting patients and staff from harassment and intimidation.
In 2014, the court upheld a narrower 35-foot protest-free zone outside abortion clinics in Massachusetts. However, the court has since expressed skepticism about the Hill ruling.
Current Challenges and Dissent
Anti-abortion groups and Republican attorneys general argued that the protest restrictions violate First Amendment rights and should be overturned. However, the Supreme Court declined to review challenges to a law in southern Illinois and an ordinance in Englewood, New Jersey.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, arguing that the Hill precedent has been undermined and should be explicitly overturned. Thomas stated that the court’s refusal to provide clarity on the issue is an abdication of its duty.
Arguments for and Against Protest-Free Zones
Anti-abortion groups contend that protest restrictions stifle their ability to engage in peaceful demonstrations. They argue that municipalities have ignored previous court warnings and continue to enact unconstitutional measures.
Supporters of protest-free zones argue that they are necessary to protect patients, staff, and the overall safety of healthcare facilities. They maintain that such restrictions do not violate First Amendment rights, as demonstrators can still engage in speech activities outside of the buffer zones.
Carbondale, Illinois, and Englewood, New Jersey
In Carbondale, Illinois, the city passed restrictions modeled after Colorado’s law following an increase in anti-abortion protests. However, the city council repealed the ordinance before charges were filed due to concerns about its constitutionality.
In Englewood, New Jersey, an anti-abortion activist challenged a protest-free buffer zone around healthcare facilities. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the restrictions, finding that they were narrowly tailored and less restrictive than what the Supreme Court had sanctioned in Hill.
Outlook and Implications
Despite the Supreme Court’s decision, anti-abortion groups have vowed to continue petitioning the court to overturn the Hill precedent. The court’s refusal to intervene suggests that municipalities have greater leeway to enact protest-free zones, potentially providing a form of protection for abortion clinics in the wake of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade.
